SITE UPDATED:
June 24, 2011
Seems there's a lot of brou ha ha over Fr. John Corapi. Here's what
I have to say about the situation. I think Fr. Corapi has been unjustly
accused of things he didn't do, unless it can be proven otherwise. I
also think his decision to leave the priesthood is a stupid one. He
SEEMS to think that his case should have been dealt with by now, and
since it wasn't, he now SEEMS to be wanting to take his ball home since
he didn't get his way as fast as he thought he should. Fr. Corapi should
learn from history, something he seems to have forgotten he spoke about
in one of his talks, how we don't learn from history... I think he should
have a chat with the bishops of the SPPX and even Fr. Gruner, all of whom
could give him advice on how to deal with his situation. Instead, he
decides to walk away from the priesthood. If he was going to do that, then
why waste the time and energy becoming a priest? Why did he even bother to
pursue the vocation? I think he will find that many of his supporters are
now questioning if he was the real deal he presented himself to be? I wonder
if Father Corapi is recognizing the signs of demonic attack? What better way
to get a dynamic preacher like him out of the way?
We should pray for Fr. Corapi, that he may come to know and follow the Will
of God for him, rather than the seeming desires of Fr. Corapi to have his own
way, which is what his leaving the priesthood is about, at least in my opinion.
I think that he should be prayed for, but he should no longer be financially
supported until he returns to the priesthood.
September 28, 2008
Updated the Catholic Links Page, removed some dead links and marked
some for revival once I get the information together.
September 17, 2008
Added a new article in the articles section below.
DECEMBER 2, 2007
I wrote a short article in the next section below. You may not like
it, but that's the way it goes.
NOVEMBER 25, 2007
I have done a little updating of my Catholic Links page. As has been
the case in the past, the vast majority of the links are to Catholic
sites, though I do include a very few sites that are non-Catholic, as
in they are not specifically Catholic, but are still useful.
I have also added a link to a new page on my site on Christian Music,
which can be accessed from my Main Page.
NOVEMBER 11, 2007
Hello. It's been quite a while since I did any updating of my site,
but I'm working on it again.
So far I have done a little updating of my Catholic Links Page,
weeding out some dead links and so forth. Some links I have left as
is for now, but will get to them later.
December 3, 2005
I removed the links on my links page to St. Benedict Center (New
Hampshire group and their Saint Augustine Institute for Catholic
Studies because they apparently have no concept of customer service.
I also removed my link to Gerry Matatics site because, as far as I
can tell, he has become a sede-vacantist. I have NOT been able to
verify this from him yet, so this is not necessarily set in stone.
October 27, 2005
I have changed my index1.html page to index.htm. In other words, it
has been restored to being my main page. I have placed my disclaimer
and Rest in Peace info at the bottom of my Main page.
ALSO, new article below.
October 20, 2005
I discovered that the All Roads Ministry Tract page is no longer
online, though the All Roads Ministry webpage is still online.
I found all but one article in the Internet Archive, and have placed
them on one page, here:
salbert.tripod.com/ARM_Tracts.htm
I will update it on my links page soon.
October 16, 2005
Updated some of the links on my Links Page
October 12, 2005
New short article below.
September 20, 2005
New short article below, and I fixed some of the links on my Links
Page, as well as removed a few I was going to archive, but decided
not to bother.
September 16, 2005
I have updated my main page a bit. I have added my modesty article,
which used to be on the main page a few years ago, and I also have
a short article on modesty in the section below.
May 14, 2005
New article in section below.
February 14, 2005
New article in section below.
February 2, 2005
I have updated my site a bit. I fixed a link on my main page, and
removed a few dead links from my links page. I am currently working on
another page which will hopefully be up within a month or 2, I also
added a page linking to "Divine Intimacy", many of the meditations are
available online.
PetersNet/Trinity Communications
I don't recommend this site any longer. It posted another
review of the Una Voce website (www.unavoce.org) and gave
it a 'C' rating for fidelity. Interesting in light of the
fact that a website carrying the writings of Hans Urs von
Balthasar, who PetersNet admits there is some controversy
about whether he believed in hell or not, was given an 'A'
rating for fidelity. If a person does not clearly state that
he believes in hell, then he does not. Balthasar was a
modernist, a proponent of what is known as the "New
Theology". He was a modernist who taught things that were
condemned by the Papal Encyclical 'Humani Generis' (Pope
Pius XII, 1950). In addition, PetersNet, posted a reply from
the EWTN forums that gives the same old tired attacks on
Father Nicholas Gruner and his Fatima Apostolate. PetersNet
seems to be a "magisterium" unto itself. It decides what
websites are faithful to the Church or not, but on whose
authority does it do so? I don't recall hearing about or
seeing a Papal proclamation of any kind saying that it has
been commissioned to do website reviews. Any website that
doesn't gush total praise for the Novus Ordo and Vatican II
cannot get a 'A' rating, but a website carrying the writings
of a modernist heretic can. Beware of PetersNet, while it
does have some good information, it is busy perpetuating
the idea that if it comes from Rome, it must be infallible,
even if it does not fit the definition.

September 17, 2008
Hello all, I know it's been a while since I updated but that happens
at times.
It seems that the "American Catholic Church" is (unfortunately) alive
and well. Recently 2 men were arrested for passing out Pro-Life (and
anti-Obama) fliers after a Sunday Mass at the Baltimore Basilica.
It's so comforting to know that the priests and bishops that are sup-
posed to be caring for us are usually the ones to stab us in the
back.
Frankly, I'm wondering when the so-called "Conservatives" in the
Church are going to wake up and become as outraged about what these
bishops and priests in this country who are too busy promoting the
liberal agenda are doing as they are when some "Traditionalist" just
wants to tell the truth about what's going on in the Church. If the
so-called "Conservatives" were as on fire to do something about the
liberals as they are to bitch about Traditionalists, the situation
in the Church would be a lot better.
You can read more about the arrest here:
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2008-0930-scandal_in_baltimore.htm
Interestingly, the first place the story was published (as far as I
can tell) was in the Canadian Free Press.
On another note, there is a story about Cardinal Hoyos here:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804705.htm
Cardinal Hoyos is apparently not happy that Traditional Catholics
aren't acting the way he thinks they should act, that is by just
being happy with the little concession of Benedict XVI allowing the
Latin Mass through "Summorum Pontificum".
Well Cardinal Hoyos, if you happen to see this, here is what I have
to say:
Why should Traditional Catholics just be happy with the concession of
having the Latin Mass? Were the liberals back in the 60's happy with
just some changes in the Mass? No, they weren't, They wanted more,
and more, and more. Tearing out the altars and replacing them with
tables wasn't enough, no, they wanted Communion in the hand, and they
got that too, then they wanted lay people to give out Communion, then
they wanted Communion under both kinds for the laity, then they want-
ed altar girls, and on and on and on. Traditional Catholics want what
is theirs by RIGHT. It was no problem for the liberals to impose the
Novus Ordo Mass on the people, the majority of whom never wanted the
Mass changed to begin with, but now we should just sit back and shut
up and be happy that Benedict XVI gave us a concession. Let me tell
you something Cardinal, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. The
Novus Ordo is dying year after year, church attendance keeps falling,
people stop believing which is no surprise, since what is their to
believe in any more? Jesus is not even relevant to most Catholics
any more, they don't even believe in the Real Presence anymore, and
why should they, when His Body and Blood is treated worse than even
ordinary food?
Wake up Cardinal, the Traditional Catholics are the ones who are
thriving, the FSSP has more vocations than they know what to do with,
even the SSPX can't keep up. The Latin Mass, despite all attempts
from the Vatican and liberal bishops in this country and others, has
survived and is thriving, and most of the people attending aren't the
people who grew up with the Latin Mass, it's younger people, people
such as myself who were barely born when the Latin Mass was suppress-
ed, and many more who are even younger than me, and I'm talking about
people who weren't even thought of when I got out of high school.
I've heard all the excuses, and the tired liberal "reasons" for not
returning to the Latin Mass and the Traditional way, and it's all
total bullshit, yes, I said bullshit.
If you, and the rest of your kind living it up in the Vatican had a
grip on reality, you would see that what is needed most is the FULL
restoration of the Latin Mass and the Traditional way to every single
Roman Rite parish in the world, and the full and total killing off of
the Novus Ordo and all its attendant garbage.
Hopefully that day will come soon, but I won't hold my breath.
December 2, 2007
I realize many people won't like this very much. So be it.
I am massively tired of hearing about "John Paul the Great". I was
browsing EWTN to check out upcoming guests on "Life on the Rock" and
the title of an upcoming show is "John Paul the Great and His Gener-
ation." JP II was many things, but he was NOT great! Unless you count
a great supporter of homosexual priests and and bishops. A great
supporter of flaming liberals in general and bishops in particular,
considering he himself appointed most of the liberal bishops who were
responsible for the travesty of the sex scandal, and most of whom are
still in their positions of power, and some of whom were basically
promoted, by JP II himself!
Some people say he was "great" because he traveled the world and
preached the Gospel, my only question is, Which Gospel? The Gospel
of Jesus Christ, or the gospel of liberalism and ecumenism?
The answer to that is all too obvious.
I agree he did do quite a few good things, but he generally did some-
thing to negate the good. For example, he was very strong on his opp-
osition to women priests, but then he turned around and approved
"altar girls". And that is only one example of all to many.
If you want to believe he was "great" oh well, I prefer to live in
the REAL world.
December 3, 2005
I read a very interesting article about Bishops in Poland and the
Ukraine warning the faithful against the SSPX. The Greek Catholic
Archbishop in the Ukraine joined with parish groups in some place
called Janov in a "PRAYER MARCH" against the SSPX.
I wish these bishops were on fire against the liberals and would hold
"prayer marches" against the liberals and the homos and the child
molesters and all the apostate priests, bishop, and Cardinals who
seem more interested in screwing faithful Catholics out of their
right to the Tridentine Mass. Biut oh no, that would mean "prayer
marching against their buddies, and probably themselves. Yet another
legacy of "the great" John Paul Paul II, supporter of Homosexuals and
child molesters.
http://thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/citw-#Europe
October 27, 2005
It keeps getting better and better. Stephen Hand is at it again with
a story that really takes the cake. From his website:
http://tcrnews2.com/musingsTCR7.html
Thomas E. Woods and Robert Sungenis Investigated by Southern Poverty
Law Center
TCR was recently contacted out of the blue by an official of the
Southern Poverty Law Center after a writer there got hold of a 2000
monograph, Traditionalists, Tradition and Private Judgement by this
writer. The Center studies and writes scholarly exposes of cases of
alleged 'hate' groups. Thomas Woods is a Harvard graduate and
popular writer in extreme traditionalist circles on both political
and theological matters. Officials there told TCR they were
investigating Woods' association with what SPLC considers an
extremist group, the League of the South and for his views stating
John Paul II was a material heretic. Robert Sungenis, TCR was told,
was being investigated for alleged "anti-semitism".
NOTE: I think Hand has finally and totally flipped his lid. Hand is
so utterly desperate to trash Traditionalists that he came up with
this. Notice of course that he doesn't cite when the SPLC allegedly
contacted him, or who. Notice also the alleged "association" with
an "extremist" group accusation. Naturally Hand doesn't bother to
give any details about this so-called "extremist" group, which
frankly I never heard of. He also expects us to believe that the
SPLC is investigating Robert Singenis for that tired old accusation
of "anti-semitism." Yeah, O K..........
At least Hand had a moment of sanity and had the decency to use
"alleged" in front of "anti-semitism".
And on another note, also from the same page, Hand had this garbage
to say:
Intrgsim: The Financial Factor
I remain a traditional Catholic to the core, as most know---but not
a schismatic. Peter and the Creed is traditional Catholicism. Anyone
who says he's a Catholic but attacks Peter on dogmatic grounds, is
hardly traditional. He is anything but traditional.------ We oppose
progressivism for the same reasons we oppose integrism.
NOTE: "attacks Peter on dogmatic grounds", what does that mean?
Another problem with the major Integrists is that their incomes and
livelihood are often reportedly tied up in their attacks on the
pope, sorely affecting their objectivity. Fr. Nicholas Gruner, for
example, has reportedly taken in "millions of dollars" over the
years attacking the Pope. And what of all the other persons and
groups and publications appealing to the pocketbooks and wallets of
others in the name of traditionalist Catholcism, even as they
charges the popes with heresies? Who, besides TCR, has, for years,
been calling for full financial disclosure from all these persons
and groups which peddle schism? This must be investigated ---we say
again.
NOTE: Hand is right about one thing, maybe Fr. Gruner and other
Traditionalists should disclose where their "millions" of dollars
have gone. But I challenge Hand to stop being a total hypocrite and
show us HIS financial statement. Better yet, Hand, let's see your
tax returns for the last 5 years. Not to mention your bank state-
ments, and let's see every single receipt for every thing YOU'VE
purchased during that time. And if you're not willing to produce
all this information, have the decency to keep your mouth shut.
I've always wondered why Hand was in such a hurry to stab his
former friends in the back, I mean literally, one day he was a
solid Traditional Catholic, and the next he was screaming about
"integrists" and "integrism." He was claiming anyone who didn't
accept every utterance from the mouth of JP II was a "schismatic"
and an "integrist", and less that 2 years later, Hand came out
against celibacy for priests. He even had the audacity to post
a link to the story about JP II re-affirming celibacy for priests,
and on the very same page posting the link to a page on his site
where he blatantly opposed celibacy for priests, as I documented
elsewhere on my site. I think it's time Hand woke up and smelled
the coffee. Hand is the REAL integrist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 12, 2005
There have been reports that the Vatican allegedly will allow homo-
sexual men to become priests if they can prove they have been celib-
ate for 3 years. If these reports are true, then they show that it's
business as usual. I mean any homosexual man can demonstrate that he
has been celibate, BECAUSE HE PROBABLY ISN'T MARRIED. DUH!
The revolution continues!..............
September 20, 2005
There are news reports flying all over the 'Net about a document
with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI banning ordination of homo-
sexuals as priests coming out soon. Problem is, as one website so
clearly pointed out, there was a ban on that back in the days of John
XXIII, and what happened? The usual. The liberals didn't care then,
and they don't care now, and they won't care later. But the so-called
"conservatives" will fall all over themselves in hysterics about how
Pope Benedict is doing something about the crisis in the Church, when
in fact, he's doing the same as his predecessor, a whole lot of talk,
and no real action. Oh, what about the Vatican sending people over to
check out the seminaries? I seem to recall that was done before, sev-
eral years back, in fact I think Michael S. Rose mentioned it in his
excellent book "Goodbye Good Men". The Vatican visitors found out a
lot about the real state of the seminaries that time, didn't they?
As far as I'm concerned, this whole thing is nothing more than the
usual smokescreen to make it look like something is being done, while
letting the status quo continue.
September 16, 2005 Updated Sept. 18, 2005
I am going to write a little about modesty, something that seems to
be forgotten about a lot in this day and age. I'm no saint, and I'm
not going to lie and say that I have never once looked at a woman
with less than honorable thoughts, because that would be b.s.
However, I would like to say that, when it comes down to the wire,
I prefer to see women modestly dressed, especially in Church. Not too
long ago, a woman of my acquaintance who, at work (she's a librarian)
generally wears long dresses, and sometimes pants, recently went to
Sunday Mass in a mini-skirt. I absolutely couldn't believe it. I was
shocked. Now, she's an attractive woman, probably in her 40's, who
should know better. I can guarantee, no guy who saw her was thinking,
"YO BABY, I'd love to take her home and say the Rosary with her!"
Frankly, I'm not sure what she was thinking going to Church dressed
like that.
I know a lot of women try to excuse the way they dress, but I have
to wonder if they would show up to meet a famous person dressed like
that?
I wonder what women would think if they could literally read men's
minds, you know, like Mel Gibson could read women's minds in that
movie "What Women Want"? MMMmmmm..................
Or better yet, I wonder if they'd dress like that if Jesus were to
show up somewhere in the flesh as He did when He lived on earth, if
they would go to see him wearing a mini-skirt?
Of course, since they do it now just going to Church, I'm sure many
would.
The message here is simple. Modesty in dress is important, and if
you don't think so, perhaps you should read up on the topic "near
occasion of sin" in any good Catholic Catechism, and heed what it
says.
And if you are going to continue to dress immodestly, then please
have the honesty to stop going to confession and Holy Communion,
since by dressing immodestly you are committing a serious sin, and by
not confessing it, you are doing nothing less than committing a sac-
rilege.

June 21, 2005
I noticed Hand is once again proving who the real "integrist". On his
"Musings" page, he's whining about how Catholicculture.org changed the
rating for his website because of, well read for yourself:
"Hand has effectively dogmatized his opinions on issues such as the
death penality, the war in Iraq, and economic issues. (touching on
Fidelity).
We've never changed our views on these matters, and certainly do
not "dogmatize" our views on them simply by agreeing with the
prudential teachings of JPII and Benedict XVI over the imprudential
opinions of the Neo-con groupies on all these issues ----so what is
different now?
http://www.tcrnews2.com/musingsTCR7.html
You can read the rest of Hand's whining on that page. Today, it's the
13th headline down the page.
I get a kick out of Hand trying to hide behind "prudential teachings"
of John Paul II. Gee, it wasn't so long ago when Walter Matt and his
fellow Traditionalists brought into question certain "prudential
teachings" of John Paul II, that Hand went into major tizzy, and star-
ted screming "integrist" and "schismatic"!!!!!!! Condemning them on a
daily basis for months, and taking potshots at them at least once a
month ever since. Hand, you have reaped what you have sown, and it's
about time! Gee, everythings groovy when you're "in" isn't it? But
then comes the time when you aren't. Spend less time bashing faithful
Catholics, and more time living the Faith you love to about and maybe
you'll gwt somewhere.
June 14, 2005
Surprise, surprise, Stephen Hand is at it again. I guess things have
been pretty slow in his world of late. He is calling for, get this,
a boycott of Tan Books. The reason? Because Tan publishes and promotes
books by "Atila Guimaraes a man who has spent years saying John Paul
II is a material heretic." Naturally of course, Hand doesn't bother to
cite sources, as usual. And the other reason? "but Mr. Nelson's
business reportedly supports and promotes views rejecting Vatican II
and the Popes since Vatican II." Ah, the usual, overused, and tired
excuses. But I get a kick out of Hand's use of "reportedly". Well,
Hand, don't you know if Nelson does in fact do that or not? Yes or no?
Spare us from more of your diatribes, Mr. Hand. Those of us who live
in the REAL world, the world where the "great" JP II, supporter of
homosexual bishops and priests, and friend to those want to see the
Church destroyed, is seen for what he really was, already see you for
what you are. The REAL "INTEGRIST".
BTW, Hand's little diatribe can be found here:
http://www.tcrnews2.com/musingsTCR7.html
May 14, 2005
I have a few comments concerning things going on in the Vatican. 1st,
I'd like to applaud Pope Benedict XVI for getting rid of Reese, S.J,
of America magazine. One heretic down and way too many to go.
On the other hand, following the schizophrenic ways of his predecessor
he appointed Bishop Levada as head of the CDF. Levada is one of the
most notorious of those homosexual supporting bishops, who not only
left his old diocese in a shambles, he even brought in and promoted
sex-ed in his new diocese.
I guess it's business as usual, just like under the "great" JP II.
And of course Benedict XVI wants to put his predecessor on the "fast
track" to canonization! As far as I am concerned, any hope there was
of things getting better went out the window. Benedict XVI is not the
"savior" of the Church some would like to make him out to be. He is
going to continue the revolution. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
February 14, 2005
No doubt you have heard that Sister Lucia of Fatima died yesterday at
the age of 97. May she rest in peace, and may her intercession bring
about the conversion and the Consecration of Russia so there will be
peace in the world.
There are already some stirrings of keeping the "Russia was consecra-
ted in 1984" alive. Though even the Pope's own words to the contrary
still have little weight with those who are more interested in pushing
the revised Fatima than the real Fatima. However, I wonder what is
going to happen now that she is gone. We should consider that since
her mission is now over (on this earth anyway), that maybe we should
take this as a sign that we should be ready for anything. I'm not say-
ing that the world is ending, I am saying that we should take this as
a further sign that the time of Mercy may be growing short, and we
should prepare ourselves spiritually for the coming days, weeks, or
years ahead. Prayer, repentance, penance, and good works are in
order.
February 3, 2005
Yesterday I was checking out TCR (Stephen Hand's website) and noticed
he was screaming "integrist" again, but today I saw something that
needs commenting on even more:
http://www.tcrnews2.com/musingsTCR7.html
Papal Theologian Weighs Condom
Use Against AIDS
"Cardinal Cottier is the highest-ranking official at the Vatican to
suggest that the use of condoms could be justified. But he emphasized
that he was giving his own "strictly personal" opinion, and not
speaking for the Holy See."
Obviously a good idea reflecting common sense and we hope it wins official approval.
IF THAT ISN'T ENOUGH PROOF THAT HAND IS THE REAL "INTEGRIST" AND
THE ONE WHO IS TRULY SCHISMATIC, THEN NOTHING ELSE IS. THE CHURCH
HAS UNEQUIVOCALLY CONDEMNED ARTIFICIAL BIRTH CONTROL AS INTRINSIC-
ALLY EVIL, (NO LESS THAN HAND'S HERO JPII SAID SO). HAND IS SHOWING,
ONCE AGAIN, HIS TRUE COLORS AS THE ONE WHO IS TRULY AGAINST THE
POPE.
September 18, 2004
A Catholic mother takes on 'no-fault' divorce
http://www.cruxnews.com/articles/parejko-17sept04.html
I had seen something about Bud MacFarlane, Jr., famed Catholic novel-
ist, leaving his wife, but didn't realize it happened last year. I
don't know exactly what happened, but I find it interesting that a
guy who could write a novel like "Conceived without Sin", which dealt
in large part with marriage, could just up and walk out on his wife &
kids. Whatever problems they may have been having, he should have
worked them out. Wherever he is, I hope he comes to his senses and
gets it together.
September 14, 2004 (revised on the 18th)
I'd like to bring attention to a good article by Jacob Michael which
can be found here:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/04Sep/sep3fcs.htm
He brings up several good points, the greatest of which is this:
What are we going to DO about the crisis in the Church?
He lists a few good things to do, but I'd like to add a few things.
I think that what we Traditional Catholics need to do is spend more
time in prayer generally, but more specifically, we need to spend more
time in front of the Blessed Sacrament, and more time praying the
Rosary, period.
Many Trads spend time reading books & magazines & newspapers that
detail the crisis, but what good does that do? Heck, I've done the
same, and there are some books I'd still like to read, but the bottom
line is: What good is that going to do?
I think we need to stop reading, and jetting to conferences, and
buying tapes about the crisis, and actually get down to business.
I think what we need to do is read books that will help us lead a
better spiritual life. For instance, "All for Jesus" by Fr. Frederick
Faber is an excellent book, which gives many ideas and principles to
live a rich and healthy spiritual life, and also has things that can
help us to make reparation for our own sins and the sins of the world.
Another book I think is excellent is "Spiritual Secrets of a Trappist
Monk", this is excellent in explaining what the spiritual life is
about. There are others that can be of much use as well.
Let's face it, most of us are all too familiar with the crisis, its
causes & effects, and that's fine, but this knowledge isn't solving
the problem.
The Pope isn't going to do his duty any time soon: he isn't going to
get rid of the apostate bishops, he isn't going to stop "dialogueing"
with heretics & schismatics & pagans, he isn't going to punish the
bishops who protect homosexual priests & pedophile priests, and on and
on.
The "conservatives" are going to continue attacking us at every turn,
and they are going to continue to help the liberals in their quest to
destroy the Church by claiming to defend the Pope and Church while at
the same time trying to stop the thing the liberals fear most: The
Faithful Traditional Catholic, who, armed with the Traditional Mass &
Sacraments, and the Rosary is that which the liberals and their master
the devil fear the most.
I think it's time Traditional Catholics stopped spending their money
on books, magazines, newspapers & tapes that detail the crisis and do
something truly constructive.
For instance, I propose something like this:
Start with something simple, like praying a Divine Mercy Chaplet, one
decade each for each bishop who was involved in the sex scandal. Just
one Chaplet for 5 bishops, and continue until you have prayed one
decade of the Chaplet for each of them, then start the cycle all over.
That is, pray one Chaplet per day for these bishops.
I will post their names on a special page for this purpose in the near
future.
Another thing to do, would be to offer a Holy Communion in reparation
for these bishops, one at a time, until you have received 1 for each.
Start with the Pope for his lack of action during the scandal.
Spending some time in prayer in front of the Blessed Sacrament is
another good thing. If you do so now, great, spend some more, say
another 15 minutes, then work your way up to an (or another) hour.
Most of us are familiar with the 5 First Fridays & Saturdays. Well,
how about offering Holy Communion, Rosary, (or other prayers) on the
First Sunday in reparation for the sins of the Pope, Cardinals,
Bishops, Priests & Deacons, specifically for those who do not live up
to their vocation and their duties.
Also, or alternatively, why not offer the 2nd Friday or Saturday, (or
3rd or 4th) of the month for this purpose?
Another good article on this subject (with good ideas) is available
here:
http://www.catholictradition.org/why.htm
Excellent reading and advice.
February 5, 2004
Again, Stephen Hand is on the attack, here's the latest:
http://www.tcrnews2.com/lettersTCR3.html
Robert Sungenis, Karl Keating and Sad Ad Hominems
This will have to be the last post on this matter of Integrism for a
good while as it bores me to death.
INTERESTING. IS HAND FINALLY COMING TO THE REALIZATION THAT HIS LIFE
AND LOVE OF SLANDER ISN'T HAVING THE EFFECT IT ONCE WAS? MAYBE PEOPLE
ARE STARTING TO READ AND RESEARCH FOR THEMSELVES, AND SEEING THAT HE
IS SPENDING MORE TIME SPREADING LIES AND DISSENT THAN TRUE CATHOLIC
FAITH. THING IS, WHY IS HE GETTING BORED? AFTER ALL, HE WAS THE ONE
WHO STARTED ALL THIS "INTEGRIST" GARBAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
In a previous post in this section we related what Karl Keating
reported regarding Gerry Matatics to some people on an e-list he runs
over at Catholic Answers. Keating and Matatics attended an event
apparently sponsored by some disciples of Fr. Feeney and Keating
asked if the (apparent) instances of obsessive anti-semitism
reflected in some of Fr. Leonard Feeney's early publications was a
thing of the past. Gerry Matatics, according to Keating went
ballistic. Very sad stuff all around.
INDEED, VERY SAD STUFF ALL AROUND, AND WHAT'S EVEN SADDER IS THAT
HAND SIMPLY POSTED THE STORY ON HIS WEBSITE, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF
THAT IT WAS TRUE. DID HAND CONTACT GERRY MATATICS FOR HIS SIDE OF THE
STORY? DID HE ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN A VIDEO OR AUDIO COPY OF THE TALK AT
WHICH THIS INCIDENT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE? DID HE EVEN CALL
ANYONE AT ALL WHO WAS AT THAT CONFERENCE? SLOPPY WORK FOR SOMEONE
WHO SUPPOSEDLY WORKS IN A LAW OFFICE.
But now enters Robert Sungenis who fell from the heights of EWTN to
the vortex of incoherent anti-papal Integrism. In a weird piece he
did on the matter he refers to his little "snoopers" and a volley of
hearsay....
MMMmmm....VOLLEY OF HEARSAY? INTERESTING, SINCE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT
HAND HAS BEEN RELYING ON FOR YEARS IN HIS QUEST TO CONDEMN HIS FORMER
FRIENDS.........
ALSO, UNLIKE HAND, WHO RARELY REFERS HIS READERS TO THE FULL ORIGINAL
SOURCE FOR ANYTHING HE WRITES, HERE IS WHERE YOU CAN READ SUNGENIS'
ARTICLE:
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/KeatingsGospel.asp
"My little snoopers tell me that he (Karl Keating) and James Akin are
often at odds, and that because of the tension they keep their
offices on opposite sides of the complex. Patrick Madrid, after he
left Catholic Answers, used to tell me all kinds of hair-raising
stories about Karl�s antics. After eight years under Karl�s thumb
Madrid�s exact words were: 'I couldn�t wait to get out of there.'"
"I had a taste of Karl�s idiosyncracies, too. When I applied for a
job at Catholic Answers in 1993, Madrid confirmed to me that I was
not hired because, contrary to Karl�s wishes, I dared to put �soy
sauce on my rice� when Karl took me out to lunch. After finding out
what a tyrant he could be, I was glad I didn�t get hired. Madrid�s
main complaint was that Karl thought he was better than everyone
else, and treated his employees as if they were chattel."
Then there is the obligatory plug for Matatics' "ministry" (why not?
he's the "preacher" for them all, all the contradictory pope-bashing
sects he plugs everywhere, even schismatics) to which he called
himself:
NOTICE THE SNIPING OF GERRY MATATICS, AND THE IMPLICATION THAT MATA-
TICS "PLUGS" "ALL THE CONTRADICTORY POPE-BASHING SECTS." FIRST, HAND
NEVER MENTIONS HOW MANY GERRY MATATICS TALKS HE HAS ATTENDED, NOR
DOES HE MENTION HOW MANY TAPES OF GERRY'S TALKS HE HAS LISTENED TO.
HE LISTS NO DATES OR LOCATIONS OF TALKS HE ATTENDED, NOR DOES HE LIST
ANY TAPE TITLES AND DATES OF WHEN THE TALKS TOOK PLACE, BUT WE ARE
SUPPOSED TO ACCEPT ON THE WORD OF A BACKSTABBER AND SLANDERER THAT
MATATICS "PLUGS ALL THE CONTRADICTORY POPE-BASHING SECTS EVERYWHERE."
AGAIN, VERY SLOPPY FOR A GUY WHO SUPPOSEDLY WORKS IN A LAW OFFICE.
"I kept thinking: here is Gerry Matatics, father of ten, trying to be
a faithful Catholic to tradition, especially with regards to
contraception, raising his children on an income of perhaps a wee bit
over $50,000/year, an income that he must generate by himself, year
after year, and do so by setting up his own trail of seminars in
various parts of the country..."
This is pitiful in the extreme. Soy sauce, huh? Look, I do not doubt
that Karl Keating can be difficult. He is only human. He has not been
particularly friendly to me. But, so what? He is correct on the
substance of Catholic doctrine and that makes him an angel in my eyes
and worthy of the support of all Catholics if his bishop sees fit to
endorse his work. How a person treats us is not the criterion for
orthodoxy, even if the allegations were true (which I doubt).
MMMmmm... INTERESTING. HE DOUBT THAT SUNGENIS'S ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE,
BUT WHY? SIMPLE, HAND ANSWERED THE QUESTION EARLIER, BECAUSE SUNGEN-
IS "fell from the heights of EWTN to the vortex of incoherent anti-
papal Integrism." SO NOW, ANYTHING SUNGENIS SAYS IS AUTOMATICALLY
SUSPECT AND IS TREATED AS EITHER A LIE, OR OF NO IMPORTANCE. BUT
KEATING, WHO HAS MADE A VIRTUAL SIDE LIVING OUT OF TRASHING GERRY
MATATICS, IS TO BE BELIEVED WITHOUT QUESTION BECAUSE HE "is correct
on the substance of Catholic doctrine.....and worthy of the support
of all Catholics if his bishop sees fit to endorse his work." IN
OTHER WORDS, KEATING IS A PARAGON OF VIRTUE REGARDLESS OF HIS EGO,
AND SUNGENIS IS JUST AN "INTEGRIST" WHO SHOULD BE IGNORED.
I remain a traditional Roman Catholic to this day --- see below ---
but not an Integrist.
I LOVE IT WHEN PEOPLE USE THIS LINE. THEY MAKE A VIRTUAL LIVING OFF
TRASHING "TRADITIONALISTS" BUT THEN PROCLAIM THEMSELVES TO BE "TRAD-
ITIONALISTS, BUT NOT INTEGRISTS." OF COURSE HAND IS GOING TO SAY HE'S
NOT AN "INTEGRIST", HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE WHOLE MESS OF
ACCUSING PEOPLE OF "INTEGRISM" IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! BUT AS I HAVE
SHOWN ELSEWHERE, HE HAS ADMITTED THAT HE IN FACT IS AN "INTEGRIST."
I learned there was a critical difference and it increasingly
disturbed me. For some it's like a lobster slowly cooking in the
boiling pot. One starts out just wanting to attend a Latin Mass. Then
comes the literature rack and "father" ....then....and it's a
whispering campaign against anyone who breaks ranks. You've never
seen bile until you've seen Integrist bile as the above shows again.
AND YOU'VE NEVER SEEN BILE UNTIL YOU READ HAND'S "TRADITIONALIST"
BASHING WRITINGS, NOT TO MENTION KEATINGS.
It's all down to a predictable progression (or reversion) by now.
Thank God, most catch on and leave over time. Some, alas, become
cynical about all things Catholic. Just try to find that most
militant first graduating class of seminary priests who graduated,
after long years, from Lefebvre's hothouse....
MMMmmm...HAS HAND EVER ACTUALLY SPOKEN TO ANY OF THESE PEOPLE?
One of my closest, older, friends to this day, however, is an
Integrist; he stays over the house every 1st Wednesday of the
month ... tonight, as I write this. I make him dinner and breakfast,
we laugh, talk literature, philosophy, the news of the day. We never
argue, though we both write differently of our convictions. But the
leaders and celebrities....
INTERESTING. I FIND THAT VERY INTERESTING. HAND LEADS A VICIOUS
CAMPAIGN OF SLANDER AGAINST FAITHFUL CATHOLICS, ONE OF WHOM IS A
CLOSE FRIEND OF HIS, AND HE STILL INVITES THIS MAN TO HIS HOUSE???
Sungenis turns this latest spectacle now into a fundraiser for
Matatics and says "...Matatics, father of ten, trying to be a
faithful Catholic to tradition..."
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM HERE? DOES THE TRUTH HURT? OR IS IT JEALOUSY?
NO DOUBT THAT HAND WOULD LOVE TO JOIN THE CIRCUIT HIMSELF, BUT DUE
TO CERTAIN PERSONAL REASONS I WON'T MENTION HERE, HE CAN'T. IT MUST
EAT HIM UP, THE LOST OPPORTUNITIES TO CHARGE 4 FIGURE SPEAKING FEES,
AND THE IMMENSE PERSONAL GRATIFICATION OF BEING ABLE TO SPREAD HIS
SLANDER IN PERSON......
What tradition except his own private judgement and tastes which he
employs in business against the Holy Father!
AGAIN, HAND DOES NOT STATE WHAT MATATICS SAYS THAT IS AGAINST THE
FATHER, NOR DOES HE CITE THE RELEVANT CHURCH TEACHING THAT MATATICS
IS ALLEGED TO OPPOSE.
Keating deserves more than hearsay punishment from a man whose
reciprocal publicity benefits both himself and his friend, Mr.
Matatics (all publicity is good publicity, often enough, to these
radtrad "leaders," quiet makes them very nervous);
NOW YOU GET TO SEE JUST HOW INCONSISTENT HAND REALLY IS. DID HE NOT
TITLE THIS ARTICLE, "Robert Sungenis, Karl Keating and Sad Ad
Hominems"? AND THEN HE HIMSELF ENGAGES IN THE VERY THING THAT HE
CLAIMS SUNGENIS IS DOING? TYPICAL HAND. NOT TO MENTION THAT EVERY
TIME HAND ATTACKS GERRY MATATICS, KEATING HAS TO GET IN ON THE ACTION
AS WELL AS VICE-VERSA.
both Matatics and Sungenis consider the Pope a heretic (!) and yet
still call themselves "Catholics" without blushing.
REALLY? PERHAPS, MR. HAND WOULD CARE TO PRODUCE PROOF OF THIS. AGAIN,
HE MAKES AN ACCUSATION, BUT DOES NOT BACK IT UP WITH ANY PROOF, JUST
LIKE HIS HERO KEATING.
They're both High-Church protestants, if you ask me. There's not a
dime's worth of essential difference, except that contemporary
protestants have much more excuse. They inherited the Reformation,
they didn't start it.
Personally, and along other lines, I'm getting tired of lay-run
preaching "ministries" (who appoint themselves and work without
approval of any bishop) which entangle the Gospel with personal
business and the need for publicity.
YET, HAND, AT LEAST UNTIL NOW, NEVER SEEMED TO TIRE OF "PUBLICITY"
FOR BASHING GERRY MATATICS AND OTHER FAITHFUL CATHOLICS. NOT TO
MENTION, HAND NEVER ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS ELSEWHERE ABOUT WHO "SENT"
HIM TO SPREAD HIS SLANDER, OR WHO "SENT" KARL KEATING TO DO WHAT HE
DOES.
It smacks of Jim and Tammy to me (ever hear Matatics' prophecies and
scare tactics about Y2K? Jeeesh!), whether high or low church is the
preference. This is more than a simple author going on a book tour.
WHAT DOES "MATATICS' PROPHECIES AND SCARE TACTICS ABOUT Y2K HAVE TO
WITH ANYTHING? AFTER ALL, IF Y2K HAD OCCURED, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T
HAVE HAD THIS WHOLE "INTEGRIST" GARBAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
AND WHO KNEW FOR SURE THAT THERE WASN'T SOMETHING TH THE Y2K DEAL,
IT'S EASY TO LAUGH NOW, BUT WHAT IF IT HAD TAKEN PLACE?
TCR receives very, very, little in the way of donations (for ink
cartridges and the like), we work real jobs for a living while health
permits, we solicit no advertising and only barter service. If an
Angel came to TCR and offered us $50,000 to show off all over the
land, I'd think it was the devil. A bishop had better "send" me (with
at least tacit approval) or I'm staying put! Celebrity is a
temptation, not a calling. God doesn't need any of us, no matter what
an ego suggests.
YET NOTICE HOW HAND NEVER BACKED AWAY FROM THE "FAME" HIS SCANDALOUS
ACCUSATIONS BROOUGHT HIM. THE FREE PUBLICITY HE GOT OUT OF THE
WANDERER, THE NOTERIETY OF HAVING BISHOP FABIAN BRUSKEWITZ WRITE AN
INTRODUCTION TO HIS SCREED IN 2000, OH NO, HAND NEVER CRAVED FAME.
THAT'S WHY WHEN HE LEFT THE REMNANT, HE SIMPLY WENT TO THE HIDDEN
LIFE HE'S BEEN LEADING. HE HAS NO EGO, HE JUST SPENTS 3 YEARS BRING-
ING US THE MESSAGE THAT HE IS SOME KIND OF FINAL ARBITER OF WHO IS
AND WHO ISN'T A FAITHFUL CATHOLIC, OUT OF HIS UNDYING, UNSELFISH LOVE
FOR SOULS...........
DON'T COUNT ON HAND BOWING OUT SO SOON, HE WON'T. SOONER OR LATER
ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WILL ARISE TO BASH GERRY MATATICS, ROBERT SUNGEN-
IS, AND HIS FORMER FRIENDS, AND HE WILL JUMP AT IT.
IN THE MEANTIME, CONTACT HAND FOR THE PROOF OF HIS ACCUSATIONS, AND
GOOD LUCK GETTING IT FROM HIM.........
February 3, 2004
Stephen Hand is at it again, of course. Here is a short article he
wrote criticizing Mel Gibson:
http://www.tcrnews2.com/lettersTCR2.html
If Mel Gibson's Movie Has Power...
This much anticipated movie will be grand to the extent that it is
faithful to the Gospels. It is this passion narrative which will be
the power which grasps us, if faithfully rendered . A lot of Church
and political tensions are going on around the man, Mel Gibson, whom
we at TCR have called to take advantage of this opportunity to
reconnect to Peter, and thus the visible Church on earth, even as we
support his great undertaking.
NOTE HERE THE IMPLICATION THAT GIBSON IS A "SCHISMATIC". THIS IS 1
THING THAT HAS BEEN OVERPLAYED TO THE POINT OF NAUSEA. THE THING
I FIND INTERESTING IS THAT RAYMOND ARROYO OF EWTN HAS INTERVIEWED
GIBSON TWICE, BUT APPARENTLY NEVER THOUGHT TO ASK GIBSON ABOUT WHERE
HE STANDS IN REGARD TO THE CHURCH. NO, OF COURSE NOT, THAT WOULD HAVE
SETTLED THE MATTER ONCE AND FOR ALL, AND OF COURSE WOULD HAVE SHOWN
UP PEOPLE LIKE HAND WHO HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO THAN BASH "TRADIT-
IONALISTS."
Many conservatives have reflexively been writing exclusively from
Mel's perspective (the director's persecutions, flu, the NYT, the
actor's trials....and have neglected to consider what will be the
basis for this movie's true power, not to mention Mel's opposition to
the Petrine Church which he can and must overcome in this
opportunity) and may be missing a critical point. If Mr. Gibson
reconnects with Peter then, together, we can face the Church's true
foes:
AGAIN HAND IMPLIES THAT GIBSON IS "SCHISMATIC", WITH ABSOLUTELY NO
SUBSTANTIATION. ALSO HAND NOW GOES ON TO LIST THE CHURCH'S "TRUE
FOES".
all abuses and neglect in local churches, neo-modernism,
OK, SO FAR SO GOOD
integrist privatized religion,
NOW WHAT DOES THIS MEAN EXACTLY, ASIDE FROM IT BEING ANOTHER SWIPE AT
ALL "TRADITIONALISTS"? I FIND THIS ONE INTERESTING, ESPECIALLY COM-
ING FROM A MAN WHO MAKES IT A POINT TO CONDEMN ANY AND ALL "TRADITIO-
NALISTS" WHO DON'T FOLLOW EVERY UTTERANCE FROM THE MOUTH OF JOHN PAUL
II AS THOUGH THEY WERE INFALLIBLE STATEMENTS, YET HAND PROCLAIMS THAT
HE THINKS CELIBACY FOR PRIESTS "SHOULD BE DISCUSSED" AND "IS PROVEN
NOT TO BE WORKING", AND THIS AFTER THE POPE REAFFIRMED CELIBACY FOR
PRIESTS! TALK ABOUT "INTEGRIST PRIVATIZED RELIGION"!
poverty, wars, and an aching, hurting humanity in general greatly in
need of the Church's teachings on social justice.
DEFINITELY CHURCH FOES. BUT WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE HAND WHO OUT OF
ONE SIDE OF THEIR MOUTHS PROCLAIM "LOYALTY" TO THE POPE, AND CONDEMN
"TRADITIONALISTS" AS BEING PEOPLE WHO DISOBEY THE POPE, AND OUT OF
THE OTHER SIDE OF THEIR MOUTH PROCLAIM THEIR PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO THE
POPE ON CERTAIN MATTERS WHILE NOT INFALLIBLE, NEVERTHELESS OF LONG-
STANDING TRADITION, AND WHICH THE POPE HAS DECLARED WILL CONTINUE TO
BE THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE CHURCH? HAND IS A TYPICAL HYPOCRITE. IF
"TRADITIONALISTS" DISAGREE WITH THE POPE, THEY ARE "INTEGRISTS" WHO
MUST CONDEMNED AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY, BUT IF PEOPLE LIKE HAND DISAGREE
WITH THE POPE, THEN THEY ARE JUST "EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS AS CATHO-
LICS."
Meanwhile, Carol O'Reilly summed things up beautifully when she said
to me, "Ah, controversy... My hope now is simply this: That folks
will go to their Ash Wednesday services before dashing out to see the
film!!"
Aye! ---Stephen Hand
MMMmmm.....ASH WEDNESDAY "SERVICES". WHAT HAPPENED TO ASH WEDNESDAY
MASS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I will comment on another article from this same page of Hand's
site:
Who Are the Real Traditionalists?
The reductio ad absurdum of Integrism is their failure (often
deliberate and tied into the ways they ---the leaders--- make their
livings, I'm afraid) to recognize that "submission to the Roman
Pontiff" is the first principle of traditional Catholicism. The
second principle for a Catholic rejects all private interpretation of
tradition or dogma.
FIRST, HAND TRIES TO DISPARAGE "TRADITIONALISTS" FOR "FAILURE TO REC-
OGNIZE THAT 'SUBMISSION TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF' IS THE FIRST PRINCIPLE
OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLICISM." OK, LET'S CHECK OUT HAND'S RECORD OF
"SUBMISSION TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF".
http://www.tcrnews2.com/celibacy.html
THE BOTTOM LINE OF HAND'S ARGUMENT IS THAT HE BELIEVES THAT MORE
MARRIED MEN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE PRIESTHOOD, EXACTLY WHAT
THE LIBERALS WANT. HOWEVER THE POPE DOES NOT WANT THAT, YET HAND OUT
OF ONE SIDE OF HIS MOUTH PROCLAIMS HIS LOYALTY TO THE POPE, WHILE OUT
THE OTHER SIDE HE IS ADVOCATING FOR THE SAME THING THE ENEMIES OF THE
CHURCH WANT. HAND REFUSES TO SUBMIT TO THE POPE HIMSELF, BUT CONDEMNS
"TRADITIONALISTS" FOR SUPPOSEDLY NOT SUBMITTING TO THE POPE. YET, IT
IS THE "TRADITIONALISTS" WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF CELIBACY AND NOT ALLOW-
ING MARRIED PRIESTS. MMMmmm.........
SECOND, HAND DECLARES THAT CATHOLICS REJECT ALL PRIVATE INTERPRETAT-
ION OF TRADITION AND DOGMA. TRUE, BUT YET HAND SETS HIMSELF UP AS A
JUDGE OF WHO IS NOT "SUBMITTING" TO THE POPE, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
FAILING TO SUBMIT TO THE POPE ON CELIBACY HIMSELF.
When I saw how they all break off into rival splinter sects, I knew
increasingly something was gravely wrong. The need for a Pope to
checkmate error was more evident in their circles than without. They
revealed themselves as true pseudo-traditionalists, however much they
may foam.
NOTICE THAT HAND CONDEMNS ALL "TRADITIONALISTS" PERIOD. NO EXCEPTIONS
WHATSOEVER. I GRANT THERE ARE SOME REAL "PSEUDO-TRADITIONALISTS" OUT
THERE, BUT HAND DOESN'T ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THEM. IF YOU
DON'T SHARE HAND'S VIEW OF THE CHURCH, THEN YOU ARE WRITTEN OF AS AN
"INTEGRIST".
We are the (true) traditionalists (though not integrists) as any
liberal-progressive would attest (we submit to the Roman Pontiff,
accept the creed, and accept that any true understanding of tradition
cannot be by way of private judgement, but only mediated through the
ordinary and extraordinary magisterium.)
HAND REALLY SHOWS JUST HOW FAR OFF THE DEEP END HE HAS GONE. HE REL-
IES ON THE TESTIMONY OF ENEMIES TO PROVE THAT HE AND HIS KIND ARE
THESE SO-CALLED "TRUE TRADITIONALISTS."
You can take the following to the bank (and take a look at who's
saying it, no juridical pronouncements and private judgement relative to dogma for her):
St. Catherine of Siena wrote to Barnabas, Viscount Lord of Milan,
on the Pope and Obedience to Him:
"He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the
keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon
incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel
and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don�t pay attention to what
the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue,
that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding
their fault. Don�t trust the demon: don�t try to do justice about
what does not concern you. God wants neither you nor anyone else to
set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He
reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if
the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and
correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal."
(Letters, Vol. I. Letter No. 28)."
VERY INTERESTING. BUT YET HAND HIMSELF REFUSES TO HEED THIS VERY
ADVICE.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
January 29, 2004
After taking way too much time to update, I'm now going to do so.
First, where to start: Well, let's start with the recent "e-letter"
of Karl Keating dated January 13, 2004, "FR. FEENEY AND THE JEWS",
in which he decides to take a shot at Fr. Feeney. It can be read at:
http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040113.asp
Naturally, St. Benedict Center replied to this screed, their response
can be found here:
http://www.catholicism.org/pages/Reply_to_KK1.htm
My comment on this is that I find it interesting that Keating decided
to attack Fr. Feeney and his followers again. Not surprised, but I
find it interesting. The one common denominator of all those who att-
ack Fr. Feeney is this: All of them claim that he taught a "rigorist"
interpretation of a 3 times infallibly declared dogma, but rarely do
his attackers ever quote Fr. Feeney directly. They usually rely on the
writings of people who denied on one level or another these dogmas.
That said, I think Keating needs to spend more time doing what he is
best at, apologetics, instead of setting himself up as one of the
final arbiters of what Fr. Feeney taught (or didn't teach).
2nd, Stephen Hand is at it again, thanks to Karl. On Hand's site on
Jan. 28, he devotes a short article to attacking Gerry Matatics based
on an "e-letter" sent out by Karl. You can read Hands attack here:
http://www.tcrnews2.com/lettersTCR2.html
And below, with my comments, after which I will place the full text of
the "e-letter" here and comment. There may be some overlap in my comm-
ents. Here goes:
Gerry Matatics' Multi-Dimensional Confusions, Temper, and Karl Keating
Gerry Matatics, a convert who called himself to the integrist
evangelism circuit with other very far out critics of JPII and the
Second Vatican Council, and who is known for publicly begging tens of
thousand dollars from the good people who fall for their patchwork
Mr. Potato Head type imitation of pre-Vatican II Catholicism, has
apparently been decompensating even further, theologically and
tempermentally, of late.
NOTICE THE NAME CALLING AND IMPLICATION THAT MATATICS DOES WHAT HE
DOES TOTALLY ON HIS OWN, WITH NO POSSIBILITY THAT HE WAS CALLED BY
GOD TO DO SO. AS PER THE POINT I MADE IN OTHER CRITIQUES OF HAND, WHO
"CALLED" KEATING TO START UP HIS APOLOGETICS APOSTOLATE? WHO "CALLED"
KEATING TO HIRE GERRY MATATICS TO WORK FOR HIM BACK IN THE EARLY 90'S
AND THEN DUMP HIM WHEN HE STARTED TO REALLY INVESTIGATE WHAT THE
CATHOLIC FAITH IS ALL ABOUT? WHO "CALLED" KEATING TO START A CAMPAIGN
TO VILLIFY AND SMEAR MATATICS FOR OVER A DECADE WITH SLANDER & LIBEL?
WHO "CALLED" KEATING TO BLOCK EVERY EFFORT BY MATATICS TO "CLEAR" HIS
NAME? WHO "CALLED" KEATING TO TRASH MATATICS EVERY CHANCE HE HAD? WHO
"CALLED" KEATING TO NOT PUBLISH AN INTERVIEW HE HAD WITH MATATICS IN
THE LATE 90'S WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN FOR ALL TIME THAT KEATING WAS
USING HIS POSITION OF TRUST AND POWER TO BULLY ONE MAN? AND LAST BUT
NOT LEAST, WHO "CALLED" STEPHEN HAND TO STAB HIS FRIENDS IN THE BACK
AND TRY TO MAKE A LIVING VILLIFYING AND SMEARING FAITHFUL CATHOLICS
BECAUSE THEY ARE WILLING TO SEE AND TELL THE TRUTH? IF HAND IS SO
CONCERNED ABOUT A "CALL", THEN I THINK HAND SHOULD BE HONEST AND TAKE
DOWN HIS WEBSITE, AND STOP SPILLING HIS VENOM AND HATRED OUT THERE,
WHERE THERE IS ALREADY FAR TOO MUCH. BUT OF COURSE, HAND WON'T. HE
WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO IF HE WASN'T TRASHING SOMEONE. AND AS FOR
MATATICS BEING KNOWN FOR BEGGING FOR "TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS",
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? DOESN'T KEATING DO THE SAME THING? DOESN'T JUST
ABOUT EVERY "Conservative Catholic" ENTITY DO THE SAME? WHAT'S THE
PROBLEM HAND? WISH YOU COULD GO OUT ON THE CIRCUIT AND RAKE IN MONEY
LIKE KEATING? LET'S FACE IT, KEATING DOESN'T TRAVEL ALL OVER THE
COUNTRY GIVING TALKS FOR NOTHING, HE WANTS A 4 FIGURE FEE FOR COMING
TO YOUR AREA.............
In a recent e-letter from Karl Keating, the
respected Catholic apologist and founder of Catholic Answers who
analyses cults and cult theology both within and without the Church,
RESPECTED? WHY? BECAUSE KEATING PRETENDS TO BE CONCERNED FOR THE
SALVATION OF SOULS, BUT SEEMS MORE INTERESTED IN TRASHING GERRY
MATATICS, AND THOSE DASTARDLY "FEENEYITES"?
Keating writes of a meeting he and Matatics apparently both attended
in San Diego where Matatics made a spectacle of himself and ended
yelling at Keating "at the top of his lungs". It all goes back to an
e-letter which Keating sent out in which he sought clarifications
regarding the apparent anti-semitism of at least the early followers
of Fr. Feeney.
KEATING SOUGHT "CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING THE APPARENT ANTI-SEMITISM
OF AT LEAST THE EARLY FOLLOWERS OF FR. FEENEY"???? REALLY? THEN WHY
DIDN'T HE CONTACT THE NEW HAMPSHIRE ST. BENEDICT CENTER AND ASK THEM?
NO, OF COURSE NOT, HE COULDN'T DO THAT, THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THAT
HE LISTEN TO THOSE HE SOUGHT TO ATTACK AND VILLIFY, AND QUITE POSSI-
BLY REALLY COME TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THE VIEWPOINT OF THE "FEENEY-
ITES" AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THAT CAN'T HAPPEN. IF IT DID, THEN KEATING
WOULD BE SHOWN TO BE THE LIBERAL THAT HE IS.
"In that E-Letter," Keating writes, "I wrote about "The Point," a
little journal printed by Feeney's original group in the 1950s. I
listed the titles of the twelve issues published in 1957. All but
one was about Jews and the problems they allegedly cause. I said
that Feeney's group was "preoccupied with the Jews, to the point
of obsession." Not so, said Matatics. The Feeneyites were not
obsessed with Jews. They simply were concerned about the salvation
of Jews. I rolled my eyes. In the U.S. of the 1950s, Jews were out-
numbered by Protestants. They also were outnumbered by people of
no religion. Jews then, as now, represented about two percent of
the American population. Subtract Catholics from the mix, and Jews
represented about three percent of the population. So why were
eleven out of twelve issues of "The Point" focused on perceived
problems with Jews? Where were the articles about Protestants,
members of Eastern religions, and unbelievers? They, too, by
Feeneyite standards, are not on the road to salvation. Why so much
supposed solicitude for Jews but not for Baptists or Hindus or
agnostics? I reminded Matatics's audience that Feeney's men used
to go to Boston Common and give public lectures. When talking about
Jews, they used slurs such as "kike." A woman in the small audience
asked what "kike" meant. I explained that, with respect to Jews,
it was the analogue of the "n-word." Someone using the latter word
to refer to blacks is suspected of racism--and rightly so.
Similarly, someone using "kike" to refer to Jews is suspected of
anti-Semitism. Matatics turned up the volume. His friends at the
Saint Benedict Center were not anti-Semites, he yelled. I didn't
say they were, I replied. I had been writing about the original
Feeneyite group of the 1950s. In my E-Letter I noted that today's
Saint Benedict Center reprints articles from "The Point." I asked
whether today's group repudiates the anti-Semitism of the 1950s.
My words were lost in the din caused by Matatics and his fans.
He was visibly agitated. His voice went from a yell to a scream
and eventually broke. He was on a rant. I couldn't make out what
he was saying, and I couldn't get a word in. But I could get out.
I was standing by the door, and I went through it, Matatics
screaming after me. I was relieved that he didn't chase me as I
made for the hotel's exit. As I stood in the night chill, several
people gathered around me, shaking their heads at what they had
witnessed. One smiled consolingly and said the evening had reduced
my time in purgatory. Maybe, maybe not. But I know it reduced,
almost to oblivion, the residual regard I had for Gerry Matatics,
and it reaffirmed my belief that he would do the Church a favor by
finding another line of work."
I'LL COMMENT ON THIS SECTION DOWN BELOW WHEN I COMMENT ON THE WHOLE
"E-LATTER."
Indeed.
Matatics, by the way, has also enthusiastically supported the work of
the so-called "Remnant" and Fr. Nicholas Gruner's "Catholic" Family
News, whose writers predicted that JPII's pontificate will one day be
declared empty, void, juridically repudiated;
NOTICE HERE THAT HAND, IN TYPICAL FASHION DOESN'T BOTHER TO CITE
WHERE THIS WAS ALLEGEDLY DONE, FOR FEAR THAT PEOPLE MIGHT ACTUALLY
SEEK TO READ THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT FOR THEMSELVES AND NOTICE WHAT I
EXPOSED SOME TIME AGO, THAT HE IS ONLY QUOTING A SMALL PART OF THE
DOCUMENT, AND NOT EVER THE ENTIRE SECTION IN WHICH WHAT HE IS REFERR-
ING TO APPEARS. ALSO NOTICE THE CHARGE THAT FR. GRUNER IS THE HEAD OF
CFN, SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN CLAIMED, BUT NEVER PROVEN.
they publicly called
for the "suspension" of "obedience" to all the alleged "heretical"
teachings of the Popes of Vatican II (John XXIII to John Paul II) who
espouse and elucidate the supposed false teachings allegedly found in
the documents of Vatican II.
WHERE IN THE DOCUMENT DO THE WRITERS REFER TO "HERETICAL" TEACHINGS?
Matatics, besides being ironically
ecumenical with almost every fringe group which claims to be in ---or
the "true" invisible--- Church, groups which defy the law of non-
contradiction in that they cannot even be theologically reconciled to
one another (!), is also very close to the fringe writers, Chris
Ferrara and Thomas Woods, obsessed supporters of the aforementioned
zealots. As the saying has it, a little knowledge is a dangerous
thing.... An army of priests and laypersons has left those sorry
ranks.
NOTICE THE SLUR, OR MORE PRECISELY THE TACTIC OF "GUILT BY ASSOCIAT-
ION" BY LINKING MATATICS' NAME WITH SO-CALLED "FRINGE" WRITERS, WHO
ARE SUPPOSEDLY "OBSESSED" WITH THE "AFOREMENTIONED ZEALOTS".
HAND CERTAINLY KNOWS ALL ABOUT THAT, SINCE HE IS "OBSESSED" WITH
ATTACKING HIS FORMER FRIENDS, AND VILLIFYING THEM EVERY CHANCE HE
GETS, NOT TO MENTION DILLY-DALLYING WITH CERTAIN "FRINGE" ELEMENTS
HIMSELF. HIS POSITION AGAINST CELIBACY, EVEN THOUGH THE POPE HE
WILL BROOK NO CRITICISM OF, REAFFIRMED CELIBACY FOR PREISTS. BUT HEY,
HE'S THE ALMIGHTY, ALL-KNOWING, "CALLED TO SPREAD SLANDER" STEPHEN
HAND. SO WHO IS THE POPE TO DECLARE IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING THAT HAND
ISN'T IN FAVOR OF?
FOR MORE ON HAND AND HIS TACTICS, SEE MY ARTICLE BELOW DATED MAY 12,
2003, AS WELL AS MY WRITINGS AT:
salbert.tripod.com/H-Art.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, onto Keating's "e-letter":
1st, it can be found here:
http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040127.asp
GERRY MATATICS MIMICS HOWARD DEAN
The former governor of Vermont has been the object of jokes on late-
night talk shows because of his now-famous scream, issued after he
came in third in the Iowa caucuses.
Last week I was the object of screaming by Gerry Matatics. After
thirteen years' absence, he came to San Diego to give a talk. The
evening ended with him gesticulating and yelling at me at the top of
his lungs. It was a weird and disturbing sight.
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT A COPY OF AN AUDIO AND VIDEOTAPE OF THIS WHOLE
THING. SECOND, IF GERRY WAS SCREAMING AT KEATING, I DON'T BLAME HIM.
I WOULD TOO IF I'D BEEN THE VICTIM OF A DECADE+ LONG CAMPAIGN TO
UNJUSTLY DESTROY MY GOOD NAME.
During the question period that followed his talk, someone asked
whether an unbaptized person could go to heaven. Matatics--who a
decade ago declared that he had undergone a "second conversion" and
had moved from conservative Catholic to Traditionalist Catholic--gave
an answer that closed heaven's gate to almost anyone who is not a
formal member of the Catholic Church.
NOTICE OF COURSE, THAT KEATING DOESN'T SAY WHAT THE ANSWER WAS. OF
COURSE NOT, SINCE IN DOING SO, HE WOULD EXPOSE HIMSELF FOR THE LIBER-
AL THAT HE IS, NOR DOES HE DEFINE WHAT A "FORMAL MEMBER OF THE CATH-
OLIC CHURCH" IS.
The followers of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney, who was best known for
his rigorist interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church,"
exist on a narrow but real spectrum. Some, such as Matatics's friends
at the New Hampshire-based Saint Benedict Center, are at one end and
say a person must be a formal member of the Catholic Church to be
saved. They take the most hardline position.
AGAIN, KEATING DOESN'T DEFINE "FORMAL" MEMBERSHIP. NOR DOES HE QUOTE
FROM ANY OF THE WRITINGS OF THOSE FROM ST. BENEDICT CENTER.
Other Feeneyites permit a little more leeway but still end up with a
position that is more rigorous than that taught by the Catechism of
the Catholic Church (846-848) or by Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 16) or
by the most conservative pope of the nineteenth century, Pius IX.
Feeneyites leave either no or little room for "invincible ignorance."
AGAIN, HE NOWHERE QUOTES THE SO-CALLED "FEENEYITES". I DO HOWEVER,
RECOMMEND CHECKING THEIR WEBSITE: www.catholicism.org AND ALSO
LOOKING UP WHAT POPE PIUS IX ACTUALLY SAID IN DENZINGER'S.
Matatics, who at his seminars used to distribute literature from the
Saint Benedict Center, makes a tiny distinction between that group's
position and his own and uses that distinction to claim that he is
not really a Feeneyite. (If not, why distribute the most hardline
Feeneyite literature?)
GOOD QUESTION. BUT THEN AGAIN, IF KEATING ISN'T UNCHARITABLE, WHY
DOESN'T HE STOP THIS DECADE + CAMPAIGN TO DESTROY GERRY?
Unlike the Saint Benedict Center, he is open to the possibility that
a catechumen who desires baptism but who dies before being baptized
might be saved through what is commonly called "baptism of desire."
But such a catechumen's salvation is not sure, says Matatics. It
might be that he is not saved after all.
Anyone further removed from the Catholic Church would have even less
hope--or no hope--of salvation. This would include not just the
unbaptized but also Protestants. (Matatics has said in public that he
expects his own parents to go to hell, because they remain
Protestants.)
SINCE IT IS AN INFALLIBLE DOGMA THAT THOSE WHO KNOW THAT THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH IS THE ONLY WAY TO SALVATION, AND DO NOT JOIN HER BEFORE DEATH
ARE IN FACT DAMNED, I WONDER WHAT KEATING'S POINT IS?
In Church history there cannot have been many cases of catechumens
dying on the way to their baptisms. As a practical matter, therefore,
Matatics's position reduces to the position of the Saint Benedict
Center: Formal members of the Catholic Church are saved, and everyone
else is lost.
AND WHAT ARE THESE CASES? WHO ARE THESE ALLEGED CATECHUMENS WHO CERT-
AINLY DIED WITHOUT BAPTISM AND ARE NOW IN HEAVEN?
The members of the Saint Benedict Center indisputably deserve the
moniker "Feeneyite." In my opinion, Matatics does too. After all,
there are Feeneyites who are more generous than he is in their
interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church." He is midway
along a narrow spectrum, but he is still on the spectrum.
INTERESTING. THE "FEENEYITES" "DESERVE THE MONIKER". TALK ABOUT
PREJUDICE. KEATING GIVES NO PROOF OF WHAT THEY TEACH AND THEN SAYS
THEY "DESERVE THE MONIKER". IN OTHER WORDS, THEY "DESERVE" TO BE
ATTACKED AND CONDEMNED ON THE BASIS OF KEATING'S SAY-SO!
Although for years Matatics has adopted a position almost
indistinguishable from that of the Saint Benedict Center, the members
of which do not object to being called "Feeneyites," he has insisted
that the label should not be applied to him.
NOTICE OF COURSE KEATING CITES NO EVIDENCE THAT "MATATICS HAS ADOPTED
A POSITION ALMOST INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM SAINT BENEDICT CENTER". HE
CITES NO STATEMENTS, NO TAPES, NO DATES OF TALKS, NOTHING. THE ONLY
"EVIDENCE" KEATING PRESENTS HIS OWN WORD, WHICH AFTER A DECADES +
LONG CAMPAIGN TO VILLIFY AND SMEAR MATATICS IS SHOWN TO BE WORTH
NOTHING.
One can understand his reluctance: Being identified with a fringe
movement is not a good way to ensure speaking engagements. But "pigs
is pigs," and Matatics should cease objecting to a label that fits.
YES, AND HAVING THE NERVE TO ACTUALLY INVESTIGATE THE CATHOLIC FAITH
AND SEE WHAT IT'S REALLY ALL ABOUT IS ANOTHER WAY. TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE
OF THE BIBLE AND THE FAITH, AND SPEAKING ABILITY, THAT IF NOT SUPP-
RESSED BY BULLYING AND NAME-CALLING WOULD HAVE SPELLED THE END OF
KEATING'S EMPIRE, YES, THAT WOULD KILL OFF SPEaKING ENGAGEMENTS EVEN
FASTER.
He has espoused the Feeneyite understanding of salvation but has been
unwilling to go by the Feeneyite designation. He embraces the theory
but not the name of the theory. He has not been candid with his
audiences and so has done them a disservice.
KEATING WOULD KNOW ALL ABOUT THIS, SINCE HE HAS ADOPTED THE LIBERAL
VIEWPOINT ON SALVATION, ALL THE WHILE NOT ADMITTING IT.
THE SCREAM
Toward the end of the evening, Matatics referred to my January 13 E-
Letter, which may be found at:
www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040113.asp
In that E-Letter I wrote about "The Point," a little journal printed
by Feeney's original group in the 1950s. I listed the titles of the
twelve issues published in 1957. All but one was about Jews and the
problems they allegedly cause. I said that Feeney's group
was "preoccupied with the Jews, to the point of obsession."
Not so, said Matatics. The Feeneyites were not obsessed with Jews.
They simply were concerned about the salvation of Jews. I rolled my
eyes.
INTERESTING. WHY WOULD KEATING 'ROLL HIS EYES'? IS IT BECAUSE KEAT-
ING ALREADY MADE UP HIS MIND THAT THE SO-CALLED "FEENEYITES" WERE
"ANTI-SEMITIC"?
In the U.S. of the 1950s, Jews were outnumbered by Protestants. They
also were outnumbered by people of no religion. Jews then, as now,
represented about two percent of the American population. Subtract
Catholics from the mix, and Jews represented about three percent of
the population.
So why were eleven out of twelve issues of "The Point" focused on
perceived problems with Jews? Where were the articles about
Protestants, members of Eastern religions, and unbelievers? They,
too, by Feeneyite standards, are not on the road to salvation. Why so
much supposed solicitude for Jews but not for Baptists or Hindus or
agnostics?
NOTICE, OF COURSE, THAT KEATING IS FIXATED ON ONLY THESE ISSUES OF
"THE POINT", HE DOESN'T BOTHER TO LIST THE OTHER YEARS AND ISSUES OF
IT, JUST THESE. NOW, WHO'S "OBSEESED"???
I reminded Matatics's audience that Feeney's men used to go to Boston
Common and give public lectures. When talking about Jews, they used
such as "kike."
REALLY? AND KEATING WAS THERE? IN THE E-LETTER IN WHICH HE STARTED
FIGHT, HE MENTIONED THAT SOME UNNAMED "FRIEND" USED TO GO TO BOSTON
COMMON, BUT HE NEVER SAYS HE WENT, HE NEVER STATES THIS PERSON'S NAME
NOR DOES HE PRODUCE AUDIO RECORDINGS OF THESE TALKS TO BACK UP HIS
ACCUSATION! AND KEATING IS SUPPOSED TO BE A LAWYER!
A woman in the small audience asked what "kike" meant. I explained
that, with respect to Jews, it was the analogue of the "n-word."
Someone using the latter word to refer to blacks is suspected of
racism--and rightly so. Similarly, someone using "kike" to refer to
Jews is suspected of anti-Semitism.
Matatics turned up the volume. His friends at the Saint Benedict
Center were not anti-Semites, he yelled.
I didn't say they were, I replied. I had been writing about the
original Feeneyite group of the 1950s. In my E-Letter I noted that
today's Saint Benedict Center reprints articles from "The Point." I
asked whether today's group repudiates the anti-Semitism of the
1950s. My words were lost in the din caused by Matatics and his fans.
He was visibly agitated. His voice went from a yell to a scream and
eventually broke. He was on a rant. I couldn't make out what he was
saying, and I couldn't get a word in.
But I could get out. I was standing by the door, and I went through
it, Matatics screaming after me. I was relieved that he didn't chase
me as I made for the hotel's exit.
WHY? IS KEATING SUCH A COWARD THAT HE COULDN'T STAND UP TO A LITTLE
ALLEGED "YELLING"?
As I stood in the night chill, several people gathered around me,
shaking their heads at what they had witnessed. One smiled consolingly
and said the evening had reduced my time in purgatory.
Maybe, maybe not. But I know it reduced, almost to oblivion, the
residual regard I had for Gerry Matatics, and it reaffirmed my belief
that he would do the Church a favor by finding another line of work.
"RESIDUAL REGARD" HE HAD FOR MATATICS???!!!??? THIS GUY SPENDS OVER A
DECADE TRASHING MATATICS, AND SPEAKS OF "RESIDUAL REGARD"!!!!????!!!!
KEATING IS RIGHT ABOUT ONE THING, THE CHURCH WOULD BE DONE A FAVOR
BY SOMEBODY FINDING ANOTHER LINE OF WORK ALL RIGHT, AND IT'S KARL
KEATING. HOW ANYONE CAN TAKE A MAN WHO SPENDS OVER A DECADE BREAKING
THE 8TH COMMANDMENT LOUDLY AND PUBLICLY THE LEAST BIT SERIOUSLY IS
BEYOND ME.
I HAVE A SUGGESTION, THAT OF COURSE WILL NEVER BE FOLLOWED, WHY
DOESN'T KARL INVITE GERRY MATATICS TO SPEAK ON HIS RADIO SHOW, AND
SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT PUBLICLY. THEN, WHY DON'T THE POWERS THAT BE
AT EWTN INVITE GERRY TO EWTN LIVE? AFTER ALL, DON'T THESE PEOPLE WHO
KEEP CARPING ABOUT LIVING THE CATHOLIC FAITH ACTUALLY WANT TO SHOW A
REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE BY LIVING IT, PUBLICLY?
YEAH, AND THE POPE IS GONNA USE HIS AUTHORITY TO CLEAN UP THE MESS IN
THE CHURCH NEXT WEEK TOO.
JUNE 24, 2003
I've been reading about the Bishop O'Brien case. Like I saw in 1
article I read, and actually I thought of this at the time the story
came out, now the Vatican wants this bishop out. Not for his transfer-
ring sexually abusive priests around so they could continue their act-
ivities in peace, but because he was in involved in a hit-and-run.
The Vatican, which is slower than molasses in January when it comes
to dealing with real serious matters certainly jumped to light speed
over a bishop speeding away from an accident! What I want to know is
why these same Vatican officials who claim that the sex scandal was
nothing more than a "media invention", didn't claim that the O'Brien
affair wasn't just another "media invention"? After all, if the press
can "invent" a sex scandal, why can't they "invent" a hit-and-run
accident starring a drunk bishop? I guess O'Brien doesn't have too
many friends in the Vatican, or more likely, he fell out of favor.
But the real funny thing is the continued lack of action on the part
of the so-called "conservative Catholics" who spend endless hours
trashing Traditionalists, but who have virtually nothing to say about
the Vatican's (the Pope's) lack of action in dealing with the sex
scandal. I would bet money if one or more of these perverted priests
had tried to rape the sons of say, Scott Hahn, Stephen Hand, or of any
other 'prominent' "conservative catholic" this whole scandal would
have been settled by now. The "conservatives" would have stormed the
Vatican and demanded the Pope excommunicate and remove these bishops
priests, and wouldn't have stopped their outcry of outrage until the
Pope did his duty, but since it was the children of a bunch of "nobod-
ies", these "conservatives" have no problem sitting back and saying
nothing, except by way of trashing Traditionalists who want the Pope
to do his duty, nothing more, and nothing less.
Another thing, I just don't get. Why are Catholics in this country
still contributing money to these freakin' bishops? That is the one
thing that bring this whole thing to a grinding halt. Cut off the
money, and these bishops no longer have the means to perpetuate their
protection of these perverts. Buit the bishops know all they have to
do is utter the magic phrase, "What about the poor?" Gee, after all
we can't stop contributing to these bishops because of all the poor
people who would be affected. They know how to guilt trip us. Well,
I say TOO BAD. Where was these bishops "concern" for the poor when
they were transferring these perverted priests from parish to parish?
Where was their "concern" then? What about the millions of dollars
that were spent to silence victims? And what about the millions that
are being spent to pay off lawsuits now? The poor are not, and never
have been, a concern of these bishops. The answer is to cut off the
money to these bishops totally. There are many charities that are not
connected to these bishops that help the poor, contribute to them
instead. If you are contributing to these bishops, and you are when
you give money to your parish, and when you give money to Bishop's
Appeals, you are contributing to the continuation of this problem.
May 12, 2003
I've been keeping up on Stephen Hand and his website. It seems that
he now advocates that we should consider ditching celibacy for priests
of the Latin Rite. On his letters page, at:
http://www.tcrnews2.com/lettersTCR.html , he has the following:
TCR and "Papalolatry"
I have heard that TCR is guilty of "papalolatry" and that it thinks
everything the Pope says is infallible.
Jeremy
TCR Reply: That, of course, is patent nonsense. While respecting all
the proper dogmatic distinctions, we differ with the Holy Father in
certain areas (see TCR's link on mandatory celibacy, a disciplinary
matter, for one example, which is opinion, not to be mistaken for
dissent). But, having said that, it has always been the sign of a
Catholic to be loyal to Peter and the teachings of the living
magisterium, relative to dogmatic teachings, on account of the
indefectibility of the Church which is rooted in the promises and
teachings of Jesus ( Jn 16:13 ). This is simple Catholicism. Anything
else is private judgement which has always been rejected by the
Church. Beware when men dismiss the Pope in dogmatic areas. They only
end up putting the mitre of authority on their own
heads. "Papalolatry" is a non-word, a trick-word coined for the
unlearned. No one I know worships any Pope, not even the Pope we are
so blessed with today and who, we are convinced, will one day be
officially called what so many call him today: JPII the Great. He has
spent 25 years exploding the philosophical and epistemological root
errors of distinctly secular humanism as well as erroneous
conceptions of democracy, globalism, etc., in order to make a safer
passage for Christianity, and for the Hope of all peoples, into the
third millenium (some of us had to put aside filtered polemical
distortions and to begin actually reading the Pope's works, in full
context and directly, to realize this). What a feat he has
accomplished! God raised him up just at the time when he was so
sorely needed, just as he raised up St. Thomas in an axial time of
change and tumult. Our advice? Put aside the works of the
spinmasters, whether on the left or right, and read the works of JPII
directly. Then wait for the sun to rise in your hearts.
MY COMMENT:
Mr. Hand claims that he does not believe everything the Pope says or
does is infallible, yet back in 2000, he was blasting his former frie-
nds Walter Matt & co. left and right because they didn't believe that
the Pope is infallible in everything he says or does, and because they
declared themselves to be in "state of resistance" to those things
post-Vatican II which do not have any basis in Catholic Tradition
(ecclesiastical or otherwise). And yet at the same time, he was, and
is now claiming that there are things he does not agree with the Pope
about! So which is it? Can we disagree with the Pope and still be
faithful Catholics or not? According the "gospel" of Stephen Hand, he
is in accord with the Pope and Church, but Walter Matt and co. are
not. Sorry. That is illogical, not to mention just plain stupid. The
Traditional teaching of the Catholic Church is that you accept ALL the
Church teaches, PERIOD, or you are not even Catholic. It's all or
nothing. Always has been, always will be.
Now, to comment more specifically on points he makes:
"Beware when men dismiss the Pope in dogmatic areas. They only
end up putting the mitre of authority on their own
heads. "Papalolatry" is a non-word, a trick-word coined for the
unlearned."
COMMENT: Indeed, I agree with Hand about being wary of those who dis-
miss the Pope in dogmatic areas. But what about non-dogmatic areas?
Well, Mr. Hand will probably say out one side of his mouth that it's
ok to do so, as long as you don't run or subscribe to the following
publications/apostolates: The Remnant, Catholic Family News, Tradition
in Action, or The Fatima Crusader. And out the other side of his mouth
he will say that it's forbidden to EVER cticize the Pope, unless of
course it's any of them from Pope Pius XII on back, then by all means
trash away.
As for "Papalolatry" being a non-word, he's right. I never heard of
it. The actual word is "papalotry" which I believe was coined by the
late William Marra, Ph.D. A man who was very devoted the Church and
the Pope and who was willing to see the situation in the Church for
what it is, not for what he would like it to be.
"No one I know worships any Pope, not even the Pope we are
so blessed with today and who, we are convinced, will one day be
officially called what so many call him today: JPII the Great. He has
spent 25 years exploding the philosophical and epistemological root
errors of distinctly secular humanism as well as erroneous
conceptions of democracy, globalism, etc., in order to make a safer
passage for Christianity, and for the Hope of all peoples, into the
third millenium (some of us had to put aside filtered polemical
distortions and to begin actually reading the Pope's works, in full
context and directly, to realize this). What a feat he has
accomplished! God raised him up just at the time when he was so
sorely needed, just as he raised up St. Thomas in an axial time of
change and tumult."
COMMENT: No one Hand knows worships the Pope? Well, Hand obviously
doesn't know himself, because this is a fine example of worship.
Notice Hand talks about the Pope's stand against all these philosoph-
ical systems, while at the same time letting himself be seen as just
another religious leader (Assissi comes to mind); while promoting a
false ecumenism by his actions, even if not in his official documents;
by his utter lack of action when the recent scandal of bishops who
simply transferred priests who had molested children (in some cases)
and raped teenage boys (in many others); by his constant promotion of
Vatican II and it's changes, and decrying some of the abuses that
sprang up after, and in typical fashion, failing to discipline those
bishops and priests who are busy promoting these abuses, alowing them
to continue unhindered. Yes, "God raised him up at the time when he
was so sorely needed" all right, and we are still drowning in a cess-
pool of heresy and disobedience while Hand and his kind are talking
about how "great" this Pope is.
"Put aside the works of the spinmasters, whether on the left or right,
and read the works of JPII directly. Then wait for the sun to rise in
your hearts."
COMMENT:I agree with Hand, put aside the works of the spinmasters,
starting Hand himself! By all means read the documents of Pope John
Paul II, really. Start with ECCLESIA DEI, skip down to paragraph 5b.
Here is the relevant part:
"Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican
Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to
reveal clearly the council's continuity with tradition, especially
in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have
not yet been well understood by some sections of the church."
Indeed, we need no "spinmasters" here. We can already be confused be-
yond belief by reading the Pope's own words, all by ourselves! What I
want to know is: What exactly are these points of doctrine that are
new? And which "some sections of the church" don't yet understand?
I'd love to know, because in the Catholic Church I was raised in,
there can be NO new doctrines, even new points of doctrine. There can
be a clearer understanding of doctrine, but nothing NEW. So yes, by
all means, read Pope John Paul II; if you aren't mixed up enough, you
certainly will be afterward! (In all honesty, Veritatis Splendor was
excellent, and I do recommend it, but after that, spend more time
reading the Douay-Rheims Bible and Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum
(The Sources of Catholic Dogma), it will be time better spent.)
Now, onto Hand's new commitment to possibly changing priestly celi-
bacy: I'm not surprised by this at all, afer all, not long ago he pro-
claimed he was in favor of "woman deaconnesses". I saved a copy of
his main page on October 2, 2002. Check it out here:
salbert.tripod.com/TCRwomdeac100202.htm
It's the 4th story down the page.
So, now Hand is in favor of "studying" the possibility of eliminating
non-married priests in the Latin Rite. Never mind that it has worked
well for centuries, never mind that it is a dissenter's dream to have
this happen, never mind that Hand claims to believe that it is a law
the Chuirch can change (and he's right about that), never mind that
there is no evidence that it would work in the Latin Rite, never mind
that if it weren't for the artificially created priest shortage, and
the distinct lack of action by bishops, and Popes Paul VI and John
Paul II that we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place........
Let's face it. Hand is showing publicly that he is falling more and
more into liberalism. He claimed in a recent e-mail to me that he is
neither liberal nor conservative, but let's get real.......
Hand's stance can be read on his page:
http://www.tcrnews2.com/celibacy.html
Notice he claims it's his OPINION. Yeah, and Pope John Paul II is
gonna clean up the mess he helped create in the Church next week......
Hand needs to wake up and smell the coffee, give up his hatred for his
former friends, and deal with reality.......
January 27, 2003
I was thinking yesterday about how EWTN was so quick to remove all
the material by Robert Sungenis from it's site, as well as stopping
selling his books. Now, I think EWTN should show that it's truly con-
cerned for the salvation of souls, and remove any and all material
by Scott Hahn, who endorsed Sungenis's book, "Not by Faith Alone."
After all, if Sungenis is now "not Catholic", and his books are so
full of error (otherwise why stop promoting and selling them?), then
how can we be sure that Scott Hahn isn't also 'tainted'? While EWTN is
at it, they should tell Karl Keating his services are no longer desi-
red either, since he endorsed this book as well. So did Bishop Brusk-
ewitz, Thomas Howard, Fr. George Rutler, and Patrick Madrid. And Fr.
Mitchell Pacwa, and Thomas Howard also endorased Sungenis's book
"Not by Bread Alone." "Not by Scripture Alone" was endorsed by Peter
Kreeft, and Patrick Madrid, Fr. Pacwa, Mark P. Shea (one of the most
vocal of Sungenis's attackers) and Fr. Stravinskas (yes, of The Cath-
olic Answer fame). So, if EWTN is really trying to do the right thing
by getting rid of Sungenis's books and video material, then they
should also ax all material by these others as well. But that will
never happen, because as we all know, only Sungenis, and anyone who
wants to see things in the Church as they really are, rather than as
these so called "conservative Catholics" want to see them, could poss-
ibly be wrong. What I say here also applies to Mark Shea, and all the
other people who are trying to destroy Sungenis.
One thing I like about this campaign against Sungenis is that those
of us who live in the real world, and are willing to see the crisis
in the Church as it really is, can very easily identify who are the
real Catholics, and who are the ones who like to bask in the name of
Catholic for the sake of looking good.
It's too bad that these people have so little meaning in their lives,
that they have to spend most of their time trying to destroy one man,
instead of producing real documented evidence that what he says on a
certain subject is wrong. If Sungenis is wrong, prove him wrong, in
simple clear terms. Why all these blogspots with endless diatribes,
endless calls for boycotting his apostolate, and anyone who in any way
supports him?
What I think is really telling about these so-called "conservative
Catholics" is that even though Sungenis has attempted, and is attempt-
ing, to clear up any confusion he may have inadvertantly caused, these
"Catholics" want more than that. A simple apology, and a simple clari-
fication of his position is not enough, oh no. Sungenis must bow and
scrape, and proclaim his belief in the gospel of "conservative Cathol-
icism, and suck up to his attackers, and basically become their lap
dog. The real problem, as I've stated before, is that Sungenis is
looking at the problems in the Church, and their causes in light of
reality, rather than through the rose-colored glasses of the so-called
"conservatives". The fact that Sungenis was willing to step outside
the "conservative's" fantasy world was too much for them. And that he
said something negative about the Jews is what really gave them all
the ammo they needed. Never mind that he may have made a mistake in
some of what he said, never mind that he is willing to do more res-
earch and correct what might have been mistakes on his part. Oh no,
that isn't, and never will be good enough. Sungenis is an "extremist",
an "integrist", and a "Jew hater". Amazing how anything negative said
about a Jew somehow automatically makes a person an "anti-semite",
and thus beyond redemption, but if a Jew were to put out an article
aimed at Catholics, or Protestants accusing them of certain things,
he or she would be considered a hero for standing for their "beliefs",
and do you think these so-called "conservatives" would condemn him?
NNNOOOOOO! Of course not. They would hide behind "Freedom of Religion"
or some such. It's too bad, especially when the Church is going thr-
ough the worst crisis in history, that these people are more concerned
about Sungenis (one man), than they are about the DOZENS of bishops
who have been working to destroy the Catholic Faith in this country
for decades!!! I don't see these "conservatives" calling for boycotts
of these bishops who've been protecting these homosexual priests,
or calling for everyone to stop giving money to these wolves in
sheeps clothing. Oh no, they would be labeled "disobedient" by their
fellow "Catholics", and that would just crush these poor limp-wristed
ball-less jerks.
I think I've said what I have to say about this subject. I know that
Sungenis will continue having to contend with these attacks for years
to come, because some people have nothing better to do with their
time. It's too bad that these people weren't more interested in the
truth rather than opportunities to trash somebody..........
January 17, 2003
The campaign against Robert Sungenis rolls on. One of his worst crit-
ics has a short list of web sites on his blogspot that he posted
because several websites still link, or have recently linked, to CAI.
This so-called "conservative Catholic" is still asking people to
contact webmasters and ask them to remove their links to CAI. It never
ceases to amaze me how vindictive some people can be. If you read this
guys blog, you will note that he seems to like the idea of Sungenis
NOT having an opportunity to defend himself. I find it weird that
this guy, and his cronies, who very few people probably ever heard of
before, are now heard of all over the place, but very few people seem
to stand up to them. It really makes me wonder, if this is how they
treat people they claim are (or were) their friends, I wonder how they
would treat their enemies?
January 3, 2003
I was surfing the 'Net and came across a good article dealing with
the Robert Sungenis controversy. It is worth reading:
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/talmudinfo.htm
I would also like to say that this campaign by these so called
"conservative" Catholics is sickening. It makes me wonder how many
Protestants and other non-Catholics are staying away from the Catholic
Church precisely because of this kind of thing. First Gerry Matatics
gets blasted up one side and down the other because he had the balls
to use his brain, and now Robert Sungenis gets blasted because he was
willing to step out and do the same. Oh, make no mistake about it,
the whole accusation of "anti-semitism" is nothing more than a cover-
up for the real reason: Robert Sungenis had the audacity to take his
head out of the sand and see what is really going on in the Church,
and then say something about it.
Another aspect of this whole thing that blows my mind is that these
so-called "conservatives" especially those at EWTN, wasted no time in
trying to erase any evidence of Robert Sungenis's existence. He had
tons of excellent material on the EWTN website, his books were carried
by EWTN, and all that is gone, wiped out because some people have
taken it on themselves to decide that Sungenis is now bad, a "schism-
atic" or an "integrist". Gee, sounds familiar, doesn't it. MMMmmm.....
Oh yeah, I got it. It's that horrid 'PRIVATE JUDGMENT' that these
"conservatives" hate so much, but are very quick to engage in themsel-
ves.
As I said before, I don't know if Mother Angelica is aware of all this
or not, but I think that when she recovers, she needs to clean house,
and get rid of these people who run her network, and get people who
are more interested in TRUTH and SOULS than they are in promoting
their own aganda (which coincidentally happens to be a part of the
liberal's agenda).
In addition, I would like to point out there is a lot of criticism
of Sungenis because he doesn't believe that the Earth revolves around
the Sun. Who cares??? It is not a matter of the Catholic Faith whether
the Earth revolves around the Sun or not. But many latch onto this to
"prove" Sungenis has "flipped". These people need to get out a lot
more, specifically to a Church or Chapel to spend more time in front
of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. If they did that, instead of wast-
ing it on blasting Sungenis, they might actually contribute to the
solution to the "problem", rather than being part of it.
(But of course, they wouldn't know what to do with their empty, mean-
ingless lives if they didn't have somebody to blast).
Another thing, not long before Stephen Hand mercifully closed down his
website, I noticed a link on his main page called:
Intention of Priest & Validity of Mass
and here is the URL:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3251/IntentionValidityMass.html
I clicked it, and lo and behold what did i find? Here it is:
We refer those interested to Michael Davies' "The Order of
Melchisedech" for an explanation of "defective" intention
versus "positive contrary" intention, and to see that "Ecclesia
sufficit" for the former.
I found that to be VERY interesting, especially in light of the fact
that not long ago Hand put up an article detailing Michael Davies'
supposed "fall from grace" shall we say. And now, Hand is not only
recommending one of Davies' books, but even claiming to AGREE with
him on some points.
That's what I like about "conservative" Catholics, like Hand and his
kind. They consistently show themselves to be what they really are,
hypocrites.
December 18, 2002
It seems that Stephen Hand has finally (at least for now) decided to
throw in the towel. According to his website:
"TCRNews.com made its last daily update Dec 17, 2002 due to lack of
finances in a bad economy and lack of time while also working full
time. Stephen Hand, former editor of TCR is a Catholic writer and
journalist who can be contacted at PO Box 1006, Littleton, MA, USA,
01460 . He hopes to continue writing on the subjects and themes which
made TCR a popular website with so many, ever faithful to the Holy
Father and the living magisterium."
It seems funny that over 2 years ago he had plenty of time to condemn
his former friends as "integrists" and cause even more division in
the Church, but now due to "lack of finances" he can't continue. Gee,
he's a "conservative" now, he's where the money is, and he can't keep
up his website, which is FREE by the way? Why doesn't he ask his good
friends Al Matt and Bishop Bruskewitz for some money? MMMmmm.........
October 18, 2002
Robert Sungenis has posted more info on his site dealing with one of
his attackers, and is updating one of the articles he wrote dealing
with the Jews.
EWTN has removed all material by Sungenis from their Audio Library,
just like they did with Gerry Matatics. The last few years, EWTN has,
to some extent become a "magisterium" unto itself. And I don't mean
Mother Angelica either, how do we know what she has been told about
Gerry Matatics, Robert Sungenis, and even Fr. Nicholas Gruner? I not-
ice that she never seems to comment on people too much, these things
tend to be done by underlings, especially Colin Donovan. I think when
Mother Angelica fully recovers, she needs to clean house, fire some of
these people who work for her, and get some people who are more conc-
erned about TRUTH than how things look.
I think it's time the viewers of EWTN vote with their wallets, say to
those who are running it now, invite Gerry Matatics, Robert Sungenis,
and Fr. Gruner to Mother Angelica Live and let them have their say
publicly, or stop portraying yourselves as a Catholic network. After
all, real Catholics would be charitable, and give the benefit of the
doubt. Or are theose who actually run EWTN afraid that Catholics will
find out that some of the people that are daily trumpeted as "loyal
Catholics" are in fact not Catholic at all? MMMmmm..................
September 25, 2002
I have been following the debate of late, or should I say attack, on
Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International. According to
his accusers, he is an "anti-semite" because he published things
from the Talmud which prove that the Jews (and in this context I mean
the leaders of the religion, not the ordinary man or woman who happens
to follow the religion), would rather people not know about.
In typical fashion, anyone who says anything negative about the Jews,
in any context whatsoever, is accused of being an "anti-semite".
Never mind the fact that none of Sungenis's accusers, to my know-
ledge, have actually obtained a copy of the Talmud and read it for
themselves. No, of course not. They might be disappointed to find out
that Sungenis is right. I think it's long past time these so-called
conservatives got a real life and spent more time in prayer and in
evangelizing the Jews and Protestants they supposedly love so much,
and leaving people who are just trying to tell the truth alone. But
that isn't in the nature of the so-called "Catholic conservative"
obviously, (at least those who spend their time blasting everybody in
sight). It's the usual routine, "You don't think like I do, so you're
a schismatic, integrist," or whatever.
If you are a supporter of Robert Sungenis, and in general REAL
Catholics, go to Sungenis's website, and read about this. Then contact
the same people these conservatives are calling to be contacted, and
tell them you support Sungenis. Also contact his attackers and ask
them if they ever actually read a copy of the Talmud, not from the
internet, but an actual print copy. If they say no, then ask them
where they get off blasting Sungenis without even actually knowing
what they are talking about.
The people these conservatives are calling for people to contact are
listed on this page:
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/second_defense.html
I also recommend that you do what these people are trying to do to
Sungenis, stop donating to them and get your friends to do the same.
Let these so-called "conservatives" know that you are not impressed
with their sleazoid attempts to trash Sungenis, or anyone else.
Let's face it, the real problem is that Sungenis is no longer one
who blindly follows everything that comes from the Vatican as though
it were the Gospel. That's the real reason these "conservatives" are
ticked off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
September 4, 2002
Below is the complete text from the July Newsletter of the US Bishops
Committee on the Liturgy concerning the posture for receiving Holy
Communion. I will comment afterwards:
Clarification on the Proper Posture and Sign of Veneration for Recep-
tion of Holy Communion
In recent weeks, the Secretariat for the Liturgy has received several
inquiries concerning both the prpoper posture for and the form of ven-
eration to be made prior to receiving Holy Communion. This issue is
directly addressed by the adaptation of number 160 of the General
Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved by the USCCB and con-
firmed by the Holy See. That adaptation reads as follows:
The norm for the reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the
United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy
Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be add-
ressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with the proper catech-
esis on the reasons for this norm.
When receiving Holy Communion standing, the communicant bows his or
her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives
the body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be
received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of
each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds,
the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious
Blood.
Posture
It should be noted that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal
assigns to Conferences of Bishops the decision as to whether the
faithful should stand or kneel at the time of reception of Holy Comm-
union. (no. 43�2) The bishops of the United States have decided that
the normative posture for receiving Holy Communion should be stand-
ing. Kneeling is not a licit posture for receiving Holy Communion in
the United States of America unless the bishop of a particular dioc-
ese has derogated from this norm in an individual and extraordinary
cicumstance.
The provision which follows this section is provided for these extra-
ordinary circumstances when a communiccant acts in contradiction to
the decision of the bishops. Under no circumstances may a person be
denied Holy Communion merely because he or she has refused to stand to
receive Holy Communion. Rather, in such instances, the priest is obli-
ged to provide additional catechesis so that the communicant might
better understand the reason for the Bishop's decision to choose stan-
ding as the normative posture for receiving Holy Communion in the
dioceses of the United States of America.
Sign of Veneration
In a similar way, the General Instruction no. 160�2) assigns to Con-
ferences of Bishops the responsibility to determine "an appropriate
gesture of reverence" to be made before receiving the Blessed Sacra-
ment. Thus, in the dioceses of the United States of America, the comm-
unicant is directed by this particular law to "bow his or her head
before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receive the Body of
the Lord from the minister."
Uniformity in Posture
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal emphasizes that in matters
of gesture and posture "greater attention needs to be paid to what is
laid down by liturgical law and by the traditional practice of the Ro-
man Rite, for the sake of the common spiritual good of the people of
God rather than to personal inclination or arbitrary choice" (GIRM
no. 42). Throughout their consideration of GIRM numbers 43 and 160,
the Bishops repeatedly recalled the need for uniformity in all pres-
cribed postures and gestures.
Such uniformity serves as a "sign of the unity of the members of the
Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy" and it "both ex-
presses and fosters the spiritual attitude of those assisting" (GIRM
no. 42). Likewise, a lack of uniformity can serve as a sign of disun-
ity or even a sense of individualism. A particular example of this
disunity has been cited by many of the Bishops in regard to a divers-
ity of postures during the Eucharistic Prayer, "the center and summit
of the entire celebration" (GIRM, no. 78). Thus, the variation from
kneeling as the uniform posture during the Eucharistic Prayer is per-
mitted only "on occasion" and when the circumstances found by GIRM
(no. 43) are clearly present.
In describing the indispensable role of the gathered faithful at Mass,
the General Instruction of the Roman Missal presents them as "a holy
people, a chosen people, a royal priesthood" who "give thanks to God
and offer the Victim not only through the hands of the priest but also
together with him and learn to offer themselves" (GIRM, no. 95). Two
responsibilities grow from this noble identity: "fostering of a deep
sense of reverence for God as well as developing charity towards their
brothers and sisters who share with them in the celebration" (GIRM,
no. 95). Such a sense of reverence for God and charity for the other
members of the liturgical assembly is concretely manifested by a unity
in word, song, posture and gesture. Thus, this section concludes that
the faithful are to shun any appearance of individualism or division,
keeping before theireyes that they have the one Father in heaven and
therefore are all brothers and sisters to each other" (GIRM, no. 95).
My comments:
First, I find it interesting that there have supposedly been several
inquiries to the Secretariat of the Liturgy for clarification of the
posture for receiving Holy Communion. Why them? ROME has said that
kneeling is the proper posture. Anyone who is a real Catholic and
knows the Faith, knows that kneeling is the way to receive Holy Comm-
union.
Second, where is the official document from the Holy See which
supposedly grants this approval?
Third, the claim is that the GIRM assigns to the Conferences of Bish-
ops to decide whether kneeling or standing, I seem to recall that
Cardinal Ratzinger stated a while back that the Conferences of Bish-
ops in fact have no power to decide anything, and it is a fact that
individual bishops can, shall we say, deviate from what the Conference
decides, as is admitted in this newsletter.
Fourth, what exactly is this "catechesis" that the priests are supp-
osed to provide for those who choose to kneel rather than stand?
Fifth, the GIRM assigns to the Conferences of Bishops the "responsi-
bility to determine" the sign of veneration when receiving Holy Comm-
union. Granted that there were norms issued from the Vatican permitt-
ing the bow and all that, but what is the point of that?
Sixth, this "clarification" bring up the point of "unity", and in
characteristic fashion, derides those who kneel by talking about
"individualism". The easy way to solve that problem is to restore the
altar rails and have every one kneel like before.
The bottom line is the the U.S. bishops, the vast majority of which
have been harboring homosexual priests and allowing them to perpetrate
their crimes for years, even decades, are now telling us we should
stand to receive Holy Communion. Well, that makes sense when you con-
sider that 70% or so of 'Catholics' don't even believe in the Real
Presence in the first place! For those of us who do, kneeling is the
only way to go, excepting old age or disability.
As far as I am concerned, any bishop who follows this garbage is an
apostate, plain and simple.
When I receive Holy Communion, I kneel because I am very aware of
Who I am receiving. If Jesus Christ deigned to appear to a sinner like
me, I guarantee I would not be standing around rapping with Him. I
would be on my knees, most likely in a state of total shock.
I don't kneel because it makes me look good or holy or whatever, I
kneel because it is the way to receive Jesus, my Creator and Redeemer.
I am not worthy even to receive him, let alone to be standing in His
Presence.
The ultimate question is: Are you so utterly holy that you can stand
before Him? If you are, then you have no need of Holy Communion.
The greatest of the saints would never have followed this, even the
devil himself wouldn't have the pride to stand in the presence of God.
So why would you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
August 28, 2002
Warning: If you are easily offended, do not read this:
I have noticed of late that Rod Dreher's article in WSJ has drawn a
lot of fire. Naturally, he has the balls to stand up and tell the
truth. I think it is time for the "Catholic conservatives" to get
their heads out of the sand, and start joining Mr. Dreher in his call
for the Pope to do something. The tired excuses, "He's too old" and
all this sort of excuse-making garbage is nothing more than BS. Was
he too old in 1978 when he was elected? Word is that these cover-ups
have been going on since the early years of Pope Paul VI's reign.
So why wasn't something done then? Pope John Paul II had over 20
years to do what he should have done. Now, unless he acts soon, he
will have to answer before God for his lack of action.
You "conservatives". Your hero worship will gain nothing for him
before the judgment seat of God. All you are doing is making it harder
for these problems to be cleared up.
I wonder what would have happened if the teenage boys who were raped
by this minority of priests would have been the children of these
"conservatives"? I guarantee we would have seen a march on Rome that
would have made the barbarians of old seem like a minor detail.
But since it was just children of "nobodies", who cares?
If you "conservatives" really care about anyone but yourselves, then
it's time to show it. Get out there and join the call for the Pope to
do something, otherwise go back to your limp-wristed ball-less lives,
and leave those of us who are willing to do more than talk and fawn
over the "Great Pope John Paul II" alone. With enemies like you, who
needs friends?
December 13, 2002
It seems that Cardinal Law has decided to do what he should have done
months ago, resigning from his archdiocese. IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!
I noticed Stephen Hand has an article on his website saying how good
it is that it took so long for the Vatican to do something because
of course we don't want anybody's rights to be violated (in essence,
though not the exact words).
It makes me wonder though if Hand had had a teenage boy who had been
raped by Shanley or Geoghan, for instance, if he'd be so calm and
collected about this whole thing. I doubt it. Given his penchant for
condemning people wholesale with no hard evidence, he would have been
one the first up there screaming for Law to resign.
I agree that the Vatican has to move fairly slowly in order to best
figure out how to handle a situation, especially a volatile one like
this scandal, but if these people had been on their toes in the 1st
place, chances are this scandal would not have happened. And even if
it did, it would have been far less than it has become. But as Mr.
Hand has been teaching us this last year or so, the Pope is absolutely
infallible in everything he says or does, so what have we to worry
about?
Nothing, except in the real world where the rest of us live, we have
to deal with the fact that millions are living in confusion, not know-
ing which way to turn, and the best that Hand can do is condemn former
friends, accuse them of engaging in "private judgment", and of not
following the "living Magisterium", when he himself does nothing but
spout his own "private judgment" all day long. He condemns people as
"integrists", whatever that is, while citing no infallible statements
or even any kind of Papal teaching that these "integrists" are supp-
osed to have "violated."
It's about time Law resigned, and now it's time for the Pope, who is
so "infallible in everything he says or does" to finish the job.
EXCOMMUNICATE THE REST OF THESE BISHOPS WHO WERE COMPLICIT IN COVER-
ING UP THESE CRIMES, AND CLEAN HOUSE!!!
May 31, 2002
The recent attack by The Wanderer on The Latin Mass magazine
I have noticed of late that the Wanderer is living up to it's name
more and more these days. It's scary when a newspaper which used to be
a major flagship of Catholic journalism has descended into what is
more accurately called "The Catholic National Enquirer".
Over the years, it was a leader in bringing news to the faithful
which was important, and which Catholics needed to know. Now it is
little more than a scandal rag, which, when it can't blast bishops for
their screw-ups goes out in search of someone else to blast.
It all started in 2000 when several prominent "Traditionalist"
Catholics, including Walter Matt of The Remnant, penned a 'statement
of resistance' called "We Resist You to the Face". Shortly after that,
totally out the blue, Stephen Hand, who used to write for The
Remnant all of a sudden woke up one day, and started screaming about
something called "integrism". I still am not sure what that is exactly
but it sure sounds like an ominous thing, at least until you realize
that the term is used more in Europe than in the U.S., and when you do
a little research and find that there are are absolutely no documents
from the Vatican (magisterial or otherwise) that condemn it. Why, you
ask? Because the proper word is integralism, which Hand likes to use,
more to make it appear that the term 'integrism' has some real relev-
ance than anything else. But Hand, in his obsession to condemn his
former friends of being "integrists', took to whipping out articles
from the Catholic Encyclopedia, particularly the one on "Tradition and
Living Magisterium". He also made various assertions which boil down
to "The Pope is infallible in everything he says or does, and anything
that comes out of the Vatican is also infallible, because obviously it
MUST have been approved by the Pope." Of course Hand would never say
it that way, but that's what he means. I always found it interesting
that he never linked to the article entitled, "Pope, The", which lists
the powers of the Pope, as well as the LIMITATIONS of Papal power. As
well as the fact that he still had problem swith the New Mass, even
though he had converted to "Catholic Conservatism."
Anyway, the Wanderer snapped up Hand and published his book, the
title of which I don't recall, and sent that out as the ultimate
explanation of the problems with "Traditionalist" Catholics, and how
the writers of "We Resist You to the Face" had fallen into the omin-
ous sounding "integrism."
I did a critique of some of Hand's writing, still available on my
site at: salbert.tripod.com/H-Art.htm
I still have yet to see a Papal document condemning "integrism", and
Hand, in his obseession with condemning his former friends has never
cited a document condemning "integralism" either. In fact, I bet he
doesn't even know if there is one ot not. In fact, there is a Papal
Encyclical that discusses "integralism". But I'll leave that for Hand
to find, although the title of the encyclical can be found on my site.
The Wanderer never allowed The Remnant to respond to it's attacks in
it's newspaper, so much for journalistic integrity. So now, the Wand-
erer, apparently getting bored, decided to trash The Latin Mass maga-
zine and it's editior Fr. James McLucas, who had ten times the know-
ledge (and sense) that a dozen A.J. Matt's could ever have, over an
article carried in the Winter 2002 issue of Latin Mass Magazine on
Humanae Vitae. The article is available at: www.latinmassmagazine.com
In reading the Wanderer's attack on it from the Wanderer's website,
I spotted the usual tactic used by them, and by Stephen Hand in his
attack on "We Resist You to the Face", that of not publishing ALL the
text of the article, and trashing it's writer based on only part of
it while not decaring so.
I think it's pretty sad when someboday like A.J. Matt, who has done
so much good for the Church over the years, has to stoop the level of
dissenters like McBrien and Kissling and their ilk, and trash a good
priest, and the magazine he edits because of an article which was the
OPINION of the author alone, and not necessarily endorsed by Fr.
McLucas.
I have never met A. J. Matt, but I have met Fr. McLucas; he is an
excellent priest, an excellent confessor (if I do say so myself), and
one of the more level-headed Catholics out there, and he does not
need to be blasted by The Wanderer and it's kind, or anyone else.
The Wanderer is a has been. It's heyday is over. There are plenty of
other truly good Catholic magazines and newspapers out there that are
deserving of support more than The Wanderer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My Statement on the Current Crisis of so-called "Pedophile Priests"
May 9, 2002
The crisis in the Church has certainly come to a head of late, what
with all the accusations of "pedophilia" and all that. I have a few
things to say about this situation.
1. This crisis is not about "pedophile" priests, even though the
secular press wants people to believe it, and even though some in the
Catholic Press, inadvertantly in most cases, promote the same idea.
Most in the Catholic press have correctly identified the problem as
being one of homosexuality, not pedophilia.
2. The facts are clear that several of the bishops in this country
have been covering up the abuse by this small minoirity of priests
for years, by paying off victims to keep silent, and trying to bind
them legally from ever revealing the details. And these bishops simply
transferred the offending priests to other parishes, KNOWING that they
perpetrated these crimes, and instead of removing them, and giving
due punishment for these offenses, they simply allowed it to continue
unchecked.
3. I have noticed, at least in my diocese where there were 2 priests
who were accused in the early 90's of such conduct, who were removed
for a few years, and then given parish ministry again, that some
people have come down on the victims of abuse, asking why they didn't
say no, and try to stop these priests in the first place because
after all these young men were old enough to do that. I found that
interesting. I wonder what the reaction of these people would be if
it was their son, or daughter, who was abused? While I admit it seems
strange that some didn't refuse and do what they could to avoid the
priest, I wonder why these priests were even doing this sort of sick
crap in the first place? Granted, priests are tempted more than lay
people, and are subject to much stronger temptations, but neverthe-
less, they are also better equipped to handle them, because they get
more graces, and have greater access to spiritual help. And in any
case, once the abuse is revealed and proven, it is the bishop's
responsibility to punish the offender, and to do what he can to help
the victim.
4. It is abundantly clear that these bishops are guilty of covering
up these crimes, and it is clear that no matter how many apologies
they issue, they are not in the least bit sorry for what they have
done, with the possible exception of one, who had the balls to resign.
5. It is also abundantly clear that the Pope is doing little to
nothing about these bishops and this crisis. In the middle of the
worst scandal in the history of the Church, we get a document on the
Sacrament of Penance, that condemns General Absolution, an abuse that
has been going on since before this Pope was elected. NOW, we finally
get a condemnation of general absolution, at a time when people are
leaving the Church, when people are losing their faith, and when we
need real leadership?
6. The facts are clear, the Pope is going to do practically nothing
as usual. What we need is a LOT LESS TALK, and A LOT MORE ACTION.
May 14, 2002
7. It is also getting out more that many of these bishops are using,
and have used, hardcore tactics against alleged victims, like hiring
private investigators, and filing counter-lawsuits. While I agree
that there will be some people who will claim abuse when there was
none only to "cash in" on the current situation, I think that these
bishops have done enough damage for several lifetimes. If they had
done their duty in the the first place, this crisis would not have
happened, or at the very least, it would not have been as bad.
8. In my diocese, the bishop has been out making his annual appeal
for money for the many Catholic activities in the diocese. He even
went so far as to issue a couple apologies to victims and give the
usual standard offer of paying for counseling for anyone who comes
forward. Oh, and of course, there is a little legal caveat, that the
money collected for the annual appeal will only go to support the
various Catholic programs in the diocese. And the really screwy thing
is people actually buy that! In fact, as of this past weekend, the
Catholics of Maine have contibuted around $27,000 or so to this. The
goal is to get $65,000. Granted there are some good programs that
need the money, but this is also a diocese who's paper carries the
weekly column of 'Father' Richard McBrien. Yes, the arch-heretic from
Notre Dame, and other things which are not in accord with the Church.
9. This crisis makes the Arian heresy look like a minor detail, but
what is being done about it? The bishops who presided over this fiasco
are the ones who are being left in place to "correct" it, and the Pope
is doing practically nothing about correcting this. And if that isn't
bad enough, the liberals and all their kind are of course using this
as a way to promote their own agenda. In addition, the Wanderer is
up to the same old tired attacks on Traditional Catholics by using
the fact that the Society of St. John, which was supposed to be a
Traditional order has had their own problems with homosexual priests.
As usual, the Wanderer would rather attack good Catholics, rather than
demanding the excommunication of these bishops and priests involved in
this sick travesty. Better to leave people who are destroying the
Faith in position to do so, than to be seen as "unfaithful to the
Pope."
10. I would also like to address the problem of people who are leav-
ing the Church over this situation. Let's face it, it is totally
understandable that many people are very angry and feel betrayed by
the Church, these bishops, and these priests. But leaving the Church
is not the answer. Do you really think these bishops care if you leave
the Church? No, they don't. All you are doing is playing into their
hands. None of these bishops and priests is worth throwing your chance
of eternal salvation away. And by leaving the Church, that is all you
are doing, nothing less. If you have a problem with this situation,
then do something about it. Pray more, stop putting money in the
collection basket, and start sending your money to Catholic Apostol-
ates that will put your money to better use. And encourage others to
do the same, but don't leave the Church, that won't solve the problem,
it will only deprive YOU of what YOU need. There have always been bad
priests and bishops, and even some Popes, but the Church is still here
and will always be here. Remember, Judas betrayed Christ, and the even
Peter denied Christ, and the other Apostle's even left Him, but they
came back to Him, and went on to preach the Gospel, and die for Christ
and they are remembered for the good they did. Throughout history,
their have been those who have betrayed Christ, and the Church, and
the Church is still here. Admit it yourself, you are not leaving the
Church because of the scandal, you are leaving because you just don't
believe in the Catholic Faith, or just don't understand it. Leaving is
not going to help. What will help is seeking to know what the Church
teaches and has always taught, and following the Faith. That'll help,
not leaving. If you don't believe in the Catholic Faith, then at least
be honest enough to say you're leaving because you just don't believe.
Remember, the key is prayer AND action. Pray more, and cut off the
money to these bishops, let them know that you will not tolerate their
crimes, and that despite their betrayal, you will go on continuing to
fight. Remember also, in the Revolutionary War, Benedict Arnold was a
traitor to his country, but did that stop the Colonist's from fighting
against England? NO. They kept on fighting. If they had given up due
to that, where would we be today?
The bottom line is that the Church will survive this crisis, and come
out stronger. WE WILL SEE THE DAY WHEN THESE BISHOPS ARE REMOVED AND
REPLACED BY REALLY HOLY BISHOPS, AND WE WILL SEE THE DAY WHEN THE
POPE, though probably not this one, WILL DO HIS DUTY AND EXCOMMUNICATE
THESE BISHOPS AND PRIESTS, AND THESE HERETICS THAT HAVE BEEN RUNNING
AROUND UNCHECKED FOR DECADES, WILL RECEIVE THEIR JUST DESERTS. THE
ONLY QUESTION IS WHEN???
_____________________________________________________________________